Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30334610›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2018

Collateral benefits: how the practical application of Good Participatory Practice can strengthen HIV research in sub-Saharan Africa.

Deborah Baron, Thandekile Essien, Sinazo Pato, Miliswa Magongo, Nomthandazo Mbandazayo, Fiona Scorgie, Helen Rees, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Deborah BaronWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Thandekile EssienWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sinazo PatoInternational Partnership for Microbicides, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Miliswa MagongoWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nomthandazo MbandazayoWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Fiona ScorgieWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Helen ReesWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sinead Delany-MoretlweWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Good Participatory Practice (GPP): Guidelines for Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials, second edition (2011) were developed to provide clinical trial sponsors and implementers with a formal stakeholder engagement framework. As one of the largest African research institutes, Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute (Wits RHI) became an early adopter of GPP by implementing its principles within large-scale national and regional clinical trials. This article examines Wits RHI's lessons learned from implementing GPP, its ongoing efforts to institutionalize GPP, and the yet to be realized potential in creating fully sustainable structures for meaningful stakeholder engagement in HIV prevention research, implementation science and beyond. DISCUSSION: For the past seven years, Wits RHI has undertaken both centralized leadership roles in implementing GPP across multi-party regional research consortia as well as overseeing GPP for smaller investigator-driven trials. Through this iterative roll-out of GPP, key lessons have emerged. Obtaining upfront funding to support GPP activities throughout and between the research life cycle, and a trained multi-disciplinary team of GPP practitioners have helped facilitate an enabling environment for GPP implementation. We further recommend formally integrating stakeholder engagement into study documents, including monitoring and evaluation plans with indicators and performance metrics, to assist teams to track and refine their GPP strategies. Finally, institutionalizing resources and supporting organization-wide GPP along with ongoing support can help build efficiencies and maximize economies of scale toward a pragmatic and innovative application of the GPP Guidelines.

conclusionsThanks to a growing global network of GPP practitioners and a burgeoning GPP Community of Practice, there has been substantive progress in making GPP an integral component of clinical HIV prevention research. The Wits RHI experience highlights the possibilities and the challenges to translating the GPP principles into concrete practices within specific clinical trials and across a research institute. Realizing the full potential of GPP, including direct and indirect - 'collateral benefits' will require the collective buy-in and support from sponsors, implementers and community stakeholders across the research field. As the HIV prevention research field expands, however, a more conscious and systematic implementation of GPP is timely.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchGuidelines as TopicHealth ResourcesHealth Services ResearchHIVHIV InfectionsHumansResearch DesignAfricaGPPHIVprevention researchstakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID30334610
PMCPMC6193316

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.