from the case study, it’s obvious that distrust from the community, toward the research team and the trial results was strong. This is really unfortunate as it is a landmark study that took five years to complete. I wish I know more about the circumstances. was there any NEP programs going on at all in the country before the trial started? As the law was in effect at least 2 years before the trial, it is a bit surprising that the researcher teams did not flag it as a serious potential problem, and engaged stakeholders, getting input into prevention, harm reduction package aspects during the trial designing phase. the dialogue around this problem should be continuous, transparent and inclusive, even if in the end, the government authorities and laws are too much for the trial team to overcome and provide the services. Honestly addressing these concerns as a part of dissemination is also something they could have done in the end, even if they were not able to resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction.
if there’s a more detailed version of this case study, I would really like to read. As Kathrine said, going forward with next generation of prevention products, and with different prevention standards from various regions, a case like this really can offer valuable insights.
