The Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, P,O, Box, 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.
Trials. 2014 Feb 25;15:65. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-65.
Community engagement (CE) is increasingly promoted for biomedical research conducted in resource poor settings for both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. Given the potential importance of CE, but also complexities and possibility of unexpected negative outcomes, there is need for more documentation of CE processes in practice. We share experiences of formal CE for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial conducted in three sites within Kilifi County, Kenya.
Social scientists independent of the trial held in-depth individual interviews with trial researchers (n=5), community leaders (n=8) and parents (15 with enrolled children and 4 without); and group discussions with fieldworkers (n=6) and facility staff (n=2). We conducted a survey of participating households (n=200) and observed over 150 CE activities.
The overall CE plan was similar across the three study sites, although less community-based information in site C. Majority perceived CE activities to clear pre-existing concerns and misconceptions; increase visibility, awareness of and trust in trial staff. Challenges included: some community leaders attempting to exert pressure on people to enrol; local wording in information sheets and consent forms feeding into serious anxieties about the trial; and concerns about reduced CE over time. Negative effects of these challenges were mitigated through changes to on-going CE activities, and final information sharing and consent being conducted individually by trained clinical staff. One year after enrolment, 31% (n = 62) of participants' parents reported malaria prevention as the main aim of the activities their children were involved in, and 93% wanted their children to remain involved.
The trial teams' goals for CE were relatively clear from the outset. Other actors' hopes and expectations (like higher allowances and future employment) were not openly discussed, but emerged over the course of engagements. Encouraging open discussion of all actors' intentions and goals from the outset takes time, risks raising expectations that cannot be met, and is complex. However, doing so in future similar trials may allow successes here to be built upon, and some challenges minimized or avoided.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00866619 (registration 19-Mar-2009).
在资源匮乏的环境中开展生物医学研究时,社区参与(CE)越来越受到重视,无论是出于内在目的还是工具性目的。鉴于 CE 的潜在重要性,以及其复杂性和可能产生意外负面结果的可能性,需要更多地记录实践中的 CE 流程。我们分享了在肯尼亚基利菲县三个地点开展的儿科随机对照疟疾疫苗试验中正式 CE 的经验。
独立于试验的社会科学家对试验研究人员(n=5)、社区领袖(n=8)和家长(15 名有入组儿童,4 名无)进行了深入的个人访谈;并与实地工作人员(n=6)和医疗机构工作人员(n=2)进行了小组讨论。我们对参与家庭(n=200)进行了调查,并观察了超过 150 次 CE 活动。
尽管 C 研究点的社区基础信息较少,但总体 CE 计划在三个研究点相似。大多数人认为 CE 活动消除了先前的担忧和误解;提高了试验工作人员的可见度、认识度和信任度。挑战包括:一些社区领袖试图向人们施压入组;知情同意书中的当地措辞和内容引发了对试验的严重焦虑;以及对随着时间推移 CE 活动减少的担忧。通过对正在进行的 CE 活动进行更改,以及由经过培训的临床工作人员单独进行最终的信息共享和同意,减轻了这些挑战的负面影响。入组一年后,62%(n=62)的参与者父母表示,活动的主要目的是预防疟疾,93%的人希望他们的孩子继续参与。
从一开始,试验团队的 CE 目标就相对明确。其他参与者的希望和期望(如更高的津贴和未来的工作机会)并未公开讨论,但在参与过程中逐渐浮现。从一开始就鼓励所有参与者公开讨论他们的意图和目标需要时间,可能会提高无法满足的期望,并且很复杂。然而,在未来类似的试验中这样做可能会使这里的成功得以延续,并尽量减少或避免一些挑战。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00866619(注册日期 2009 年 3 月 19 日)。