Community involvement in biomedical research conducted in the global health context; what can be done to make it really matter?

Federica Fregonese, Federica Fregonese

Abstract

Background: Community involvement in research has been advocated by researchers, communities, regulatory agencies, and funders with the aim of reinforcing subjects' protection and improving research efficiency. Community involvement also has the potential to improve dissemination, uptake, and implementation of research findings. The fields of community based participatory research conducted with indigenous populations and of participatory action research offer a large base of experience in community involvement in research. Rules on involving the population affected when conducting research have been established in these fields. But what is the role of community engagement in clinical research and observational studies conducted in biomedical research outside of these specific areas? More than 20 years ago, in the field of HIV medicine, regulatory bodies and funding agencies (such as the US National Institutes of Health) recommended the constitution of a formal organism, the Community Advisory Board (CAB), as part of the study requirements for HIV trials. More recently, CABs have been adopted and used in other fields of medical research, such as malaria. CABs are not without limitations, however, and there is little research on the effectiveness of their use in achieving community protection and participation. Nevertheless, CABs could be a model to import into clinical trials and observational research where no alternative model of community representation is currently being used.

Conclusions: Allocating more resources to training and shifting more power to community representatives could be part of the solution to current CAB limitations. However, for researchers to be able to apply these recommendations on community involvement, certain conditions need to be met. In particular, funding agencies need to recognize the human and financial resources required for serious community involvement, and the academic environment needs to take community involvement into account when appraising, mentoring, and training researchers.

Keywords: CAB; Clinical trials; Community involvement.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares that he/she has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Manda-Taylor L. Establishing community advisory boards for clinical trial research in Malawi: engendering ethical conduct in research. Malawi Med J. 2013;25:96–100.
    1. Weijer C, Emanuel EJ. Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science. 2000;289:1142–1144. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5482.1142.
    1. Buchanan D, Sifunda S, Naidoo N, James S, Reddy P. Assuring adequate protections in international Health Research: a principled justification and practical recommendations for the role of community oversight. Public Health Ethics. 2008;1:246–257. doi: 10.1093/phe/phn027.
    1. King NMP, Henderson G, Stein J. Beyond Regulations: Ethics in Human Subjects Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1999.
    1. Quinn SC. Ethics in public Health Research. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:918–922. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.6.918.
    1. Koné A, Sullivan M, Senturia KD, Chrisman NJ, Ciske SJ, Krieger JW. Improving collaboration between researchers and communities. Public Health Rep. 2000;115:243–248. doi: 10.1093/phr/115.2.243.
    1. Weijer C, Goldsand G, Emanuel EJ. Protecting communities in research: current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nat Genet. 1999;23:275–280. doi: 10.1038/15455.
    1. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, et al. Results [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004. Available from: . Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
    1. Baum F, MacDougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:854–857. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662.
    1. Marsh V, Kamuya D, Rowa Y, Gikonyo C, Molyneux S. Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: Experiences from the KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya. Soc Sci Med. 1982;2008(67):721–733.
    1. Musesengwa R, Chimbari MJ. Community engagement practices in Southern Africa: Review and thematic synthesis of studies done in Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Acta Trop. [Internet]; Available from: Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
    1. The Belmont Report [Internet]. . 2010. Available from: Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
    1. Pratt B, Lwin KM, Zion D, Nosten F, Loff B, Cheah PY. Exploitation and community engagement: can community advisory boards successfully assume a role minimising exploitation in international research? Dev World Bioeth. 2015;15:18–26. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12031.
    1. Tindana PO, Singh JA, Tracy CS, Upshur REG, Daar AS, Singer PA, et al. Grand Challenges in Global Health: Community Engagement in Research in Developing Countries. PLoS Med. [Internet]. 2007;4. Available from: . Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
    1. King KF, Kolopack P, Merritt MW, Lavery JV. Community engagement and the human infrastructure of global health research. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:84. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-84.
    1. Singh JA, Mills EJ. The abandoned trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: what went wrong? PLoS Med. 2005;2:e234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020234.
    1. Singer PA, Taylor AD, Daar AS, Upshur REG, Singh JA, Lavery JV. Grand Challenges in Global Health: The Ethical, Social and Cultural Program. PLoS Med. [Internet]. 2007;4. Available from: . Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
    1. Mwinga A, Moodley K. Engaging with Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Lusaka Zambia: perspectives from the research team and CAB members. BMC Med. Ethics [Internet]. 2015;16. Available from: Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
    1. Doumbo OK. Global voices of science. It takes a village: medical research and ethics in Mali. Science. 2005;307:679–681. doi: 10.1126/science.1109773.
    1. Green LW, Mercer SL. Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1926–1929. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1926.
    1. Sharp RR, Foster MW. Involving study populations in the review of genetic research. J Law Med Ethics J Am Soc Law Med Ethics. 2000;28:41–51.
    1. Diallo DA, Doumbo OK, Plowe CV, Wellems TE, Emanuel EJ, Hurst SA. Community permission for medical research in developing countries. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:255–259. doi: 10.1086/430707.
    1. Good participatory practice: Guidelines for biomedical HIV prevention trials (2011) | UNAIDS [Internet]. Available from: . Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
    1. HPTN. HIV Prevention Trials Network Ethics Guidance for Research. [Internet]. 2009. Available from: . Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
    1. H3Africa-Consortium. H3Africa Guidelines for Community Engagement. [Internet]. 2014. Available from: . Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
    1. Varmus H, Klausner R, Zerhouni E, Acharya T, Daar AS, Singer PA. Public health. Grand challenges in Global Health. Science. 2003;302:398–399. doi: 10.1126/science.1091769.
    1. Wellcome Trust expands funding streams in the humanities and social sciences | Wellcome [Internet]. Available from: . Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
    1. Lawrence C, Stewart K. The challenge of community representation: lessons from six HIV clinical research community advisory boards in Uganda. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(4):311–21.
    1. Morin SF, Maiorana A, Koester KA, Sheon NM, Richards TA. Community consultation in HIV prevention research: a study of community advisory boards at 6 research sites. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2003;33:513–520. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200308010-00013.
    1. Maung Lwin K, Cheah PY, Cheah PK, White NJ, Day NPJ, Nosten F, et al. Motivations and perceptions of community advisory boards in the ethics of medical research: the case of the Thai-Myanmar border. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-12.
    1. Strauss RP, Sengupta S, Quinn SC, Goeppinger J, Spaulding C, Kegeles SM, et al. The role of community advisory boards: involving communities in the informed consent process. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1938–1943. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1938.
    1. Delaney EM, Walton HM, Trezza GR, Henley KM, Vielhauer MJ, Morgan E, et al. Community advisory boards in HIV research: current scientific status and future directions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2012;59:e78–e81. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31824acdfb.
    1. MacQueen KM, Bhan A, Frohlich J, Holzer J, Sugarman J. Evaluating community engagement in global health research: the need for metrics. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:44. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0033-9.
    1. Tindana P, de Vries J, Campbell M, Littler K, Seeley J, Marshall P, et al. Community engagement strategies for genomic studies in Africa: a review of the literature. BMC Med. Ethics [Internet]. 2015;16. Available from: Accessed 8 Oct 2016.
    1. MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Metzger DS, Kegeles S, Strauss RP, Scotti R, et al. What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1929–1938. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929.
    1. Consent and Community Engagement in diverse research contexts Reviewing and developing research and practice. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013;8:1–18.
    1. Kamuya DM, Marsh V, Kombe FK, Geissler PW, Molyneux SC. Engaging communities to strengthen research ethics in low-income settings: selection and perceptions of members of a network of representatives in coastal Kenya. Dev World Bioeth. 2013;13:10. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12014.
    1. Dickert N, Sugarman J. Ethical goals of community consultation in research. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(7):1123. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.058933.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren