Lesson 8 (replaces the weekly question)

Prioritization of stakeholders and need for wider advisory mechanisms besides CAB are two of my take away’s of this course. Being more systematical in engaging community will prevent gaps that may have negative impact in the future.
A more professionalized and thoughtful communication is another good point. Have all the sensitive issues in mind, proactively communicate them when addressing stakeholders may prevent conflict and distrust and give a thoughtful and confident image.

I am currently involved in a maternal and child health education intervention in slum communities in Nigeria. Our research team works with scientists including medical doctors, public health specialists, child psychologist, nutritionists, nurses etc. as well as non scientists such as traditional birth attendants, government officials, media personnel, traditional rulers and others that have high influence on the outcome of the intervention. Though their inputs came at various stages but are relevant to a successful implementation. Engaging meaningfully other scientists offers wide approach to tackling issues/challenges, eliminates ”closed thinking” and gives room to think outside the box and have a balanced conclusion. The challenge is identifying and prioritizing their relevance and dealing with conflict of interest.

In my current trial we did not involve the local stakeholders early enough and were making protocol changes at the time of the Investigator meetings. With the political changes globally we definitely need to be more conscious of the timing of collaborations and local interactions in order to be more efficient and ensure we stick to our timelines as this all relates back to amount and length of funding provided for each project.