Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26295159›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Towards a Science of Community Stakeholder Engagement in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: An Embedded Four-Country Case Study.

Peter A Newman, Clara Rubincam, Catherine Slack, Zaynab Essack, Venkatesan Chakrapani, Deng-Min Chuang, Suchon Tepjan, Murali Shunmugam, Surachet Roungprakhon, Carmen Logie and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 2021 Community Engagement Studio Virtual Training Summit: Increasing the Diversity of Stakeholders Engaged in Research.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Peter A NewmanFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Clara RubincamFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Catherine SlackHIV/AIDS Vaccines Ethics Group, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Zaynab EssackHIV/AIDS Vaccines Ethics Group, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Venkatesan ChakrapaniCentre for Sexuality and Health Research and Policy (C-SHaRP), Chennai, India.
Deng-Min ChuangFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Suchon TepjanFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Murali ShunmugamCentre for Sexuality and Health Research and Policy (C-SHaRP), Chennai, India.
Surachet RoungprakhonFaculty of Science and Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon, Bangkok, Thailand.
Carmen LogieFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer KoenHIV/AIDS Vaccines Ethics Group, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Graham LindeggerHIV/AIDS Vaccines Ethics Group, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP-102512Canadian Institutes of Health Research THA-118570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBroad international guidelines and studies in the context of individual clinical trials highlight the centrality of community stakeholder engagement in conducting ethically rigorous HIV prevention trials. We explored and identified challenges and facilitators for community stakeholder engagement in biomedical HIV prevention trials in diverse global settings. Our aim was to assess and deepen the empirical foundation for priorities included in the GPP guidelines and to highlight challenges in implementation that may merit further attention in subsequent GPP iterations.

methodsFrom 2008-2012 we conducted an embedded, multiple case study centered in Thailand, India, South Africa and Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with respondents from different trial-related subsystems: civil society organization representatives, community advocates, service providers, clinical trialists/researchers, former trial participants, and key HIV risk populations. Interviews/focus groups were recorded, and coded using thematic content analysis. After intra-case analyses, we conducted cross-case analysis to contrast and synthesize themes and sub-themes across cases. Lastly, we applied the case study findings to explore and assess UNAIDS/AVAC GPP guidelines and the GPP Blueprint for Stakeholder Engagement.

resultsAcross settings, we identified three cross-cutting themes as essential to community stakeholder engagement: trial literacy, including lexicon challenges and misconceptions that imperil sound communication; mistrust due to historical exploitation; and participatory processes: engaging early; considering the breadth of "community"; and, developing appropriate stakeholder roles. Site-specific challenges arose in resource-limited settings and settings where trials were halted.

conclusionsThis multiple case study revealed common themes underlying community stakeholder engagement across four country settings that largely mirror GPP goals and the GPP Blueprint, as well as highlighting challenges in the implementation of important guidelines. GPP guidance documents could be strengthened through greater focus on: identifying and addressing the community-specific roots of mistrust and its impact on trial literacy activities; achieving and evaluating representativeness in community stakeholder groups; and addressing the impact of power and funding streams on meaningful engagement and independent decision-making.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultBiomedical ResearchCanadaClinical Trials as TopicFemaleFocus GroupsGuidelines as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansIndiaInternational CooperationMaleSouth AfricaTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26295159
PMCPMC4546590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.