Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34911524›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2021

Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study.

Levicatus Mugenyi, Andrew Mijumbi, Mastula Nanfuka, Collins Agaba, Fedress Kaliba, Irene Seryazi Semakula, Winfred Badanga Nazziwa, Joseph Ochieng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Levicatus MugenyiThe AIDS Support Organization, Kampala, Uganda. lmugenyi005@gmail.com.
Andrew MijumbiThe AIDS Support Organization, Kampala, Uganda.
Mastula NanfukaMakerere University-John Hopkins University Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
Collins AgabaThe AIDS Support Organization, Kampala, Uganda.
Fedress KalibaThe AIDS Support Organization, Kampala, Uganda.
Irene Seryazi SemakulaUganda National Council for Science and Technology, Kampala, Uganda.
Winfred Badanga NazziwaUganda National Council for Science and Technology, Kampala, Uganda.
Joseph OchiengCollege of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
The AIDS Support Organization · UGUganda National Council for Higher Education · UGMakerere University · UGMUJHU Research Collaboration · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement is a key component in health research. One of the ways health researchers ensure community engagement is through Community Advisory Boards (CABs). The capacity of CABs to properly perform their role in clinical research has not been well described in many resource limited settings. In this study, we assessed the capacity of CABs for effective community engagement in Uganda.

methodsWe conducted a cross sectional study with mixed methods. We used structured questionnaires and key informant interviews (KII) to collect data from CAB members, trial investigators, and community liaison officers. For quantitative data, we used descriptive statistics while for qualitative data we used content analysis.

resultsSeventy three CAB members were interviewed using structured questionnaires; 58.9% males, median age 49 years (IQR 24-70), 71.2% had attained tertiary education, 42.5% never attended any research ethics training, only 26% had a training in human subject protection, 30.1% had training in health research, 50.7% never attended any training about the role of CABs, and 72.6% had no guidelines for their operation. On the qualitative aspect, 24 KIIs cited CAB members to have some skills and ability to understand and review study documents, offer guidance on community norms and expectations and give valuable feedback to the investigators. However, challenges like limited resources, lack of independence and guidelines, and knowledge gaps about research ethics were cited as hindrances of CABs capacity.

conclusionThough CABs have some capacity to perform their role in the Ugandan setting, their functionality is limited by lack of resources to facilitate their work, lack of independence, lack of guidelines for their operations and limited knowledge regarding issues of research ethics and protection of the rights of trial participants.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesEthics, ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansKnowledgeMaleMiddle AgedResearch PersonnelCABsCapacityCommunity engagementKnowledgeResearch communitiesResearch ethicsTraining

Identifiers

PMID34911524
PMCPMC8672338
OpenAlexW4225433060

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.