Examining the potential for exploitation by local intermediaries.

University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
The American Journal of Bioethics (Impact Factor: 2.45). 03/2010; 10(3):12-3. DOI: 10.1080/15265160903585586
Source: PubMed
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: we discuss ethical challenges and opportunities experienced by peer research assistants (PRAs) in a multi-method HIV community-based research study in Ontario, Canada. We review lessons learned and best practices based on our experience conducting a qualitative investigation of research priorities with diverse women living with HIV (WLWH) and implementation of a cross-sectional survey with African, Caribbean, and Black WLWH. While some opportunities were similar across research phases for PRAs (e.g., skill building), distinct challenges emerged in qualitative and quantitative phases. For example, our training did not adequately prepare PRAs with focus group facilitation skills; at times, survey implementation became counseling sessions. Researchers should assess how best to support PRAs as part of multi-method research processes.
    Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10/2012; 7(4):10-19. DOI:10.1525/jer.2012.7.4.10 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community engagement is increasingly emphasized in biomedical research, as a right in itself, and to strengthen ethical practice. We draw on interviews and observations to consider the practical and ethical implications of involving Community Health Workers (CHWs) as part of a community engagement strategy for a vaccine trial on the Kenyan Coast. CHWs were initially engaged as an important network to be informed about the trial. However over time, and in response to community advice, they became involved in trial information sharing and identifying potential participants; thereby taking on roles that overlapped with those of employed fieldworkers (FWs). While CHWs involvement was generally perceived as positive and appreciated, there were challenges in their relations with FWs and other community members, partly related to levels and forms of remuneration. Specifically, payment of CHWs was not as high as for FWs and was based on 'performance'. This extrinsic motivation had the potential to crowd out CHWs intrinsic motivation to perform their pre-existing community roles. CHWs remuneration potentially also contributed to CHWs distorting trial information to encourage community members to participate; and to researchers encouraging CHWs to utilize their social connections and status to increase the numbers of people who attended information giving sessions. Individual consent processes were protected in this trial through final information sharing and consent being conducted by trained clinical staff who were not embedded in study communities. However, our experiences suggest that roles and remuneration of all front line staff and volunteers involved in trials need careful consideration from the outset, and monitoring and discussion over time.
    Developing World Bioethics 04/2013; 13(1):38-47. DOI:10.1111/dewb.12015 · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community Engagement (CE) has been presented by bio-ethicists and scientists as a straightforward and unequivocal good which can minimize the risks of exploitation and ensure a fair distribution of research benefits in developing countries. By means of ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in Kenya between 2007 and 2009 we explored how CE is understood and enacted in paediatric vaccine trials conducted by the Kenyan Medical Research Institute and the US Centers for Disease Control (KEMRI/CDC). In this paper we focus on the role of paid volunteers who act as an interface between villagers KEMRI/CDC. Village Reporters' (VRs) position of being both with the community and with KEMRI/CDC is advantageous for the conduct of trials. However it is also problematic in terms of exercising trust, balancing allegiances and representing community views. VRs role is shaped by ambiguities related to their employment status and their dual accountability to researchers and their villages. VRs are understandably careful to stress their commitment to self-less community service since it augments their respectability at community level and opens up opportunities for financial gain and self-development. Simultaneously VRs association with KEMRI/CDC and proximity to trial participants requires them to negotiate implicit and explicit expectations for material and medical assistance in a cultural setting in which much importance is placed on sharing and mutuality. To ensure continuity of productive interactions between VRs, and similar community intermediaries, and researchers, open discussion is needed about the problematic aspects of relational ethics, issues concerning undue influence, power relations and negotiating expectations.
    Developing World Bioethics 04/2013; 13(1):30-7. DOI:10.1111/dewb.12023 · 1.46 Impact Factor