• Creator
  • #2233

    Dear All,

    CAB should be a part who brainstorm during drafting protocol both scientific and community engagement with sponsor and investigator. Can it be possible ? I found only consultation about community aspect in Thailand.

    I noticed most of CAB in Thailand involved only community engagement in protocol drafting, not involved in scientific perception. The drafted protocol is finished before asking CAB suggestions. They consulted only in aspect of community and asked issue that related in informed consent or other materials such as brochure or flyer. Some institute completed their protocol and they only inform the CAB. However I understand researchers may think CAB might not have enough ability to do on protocol.

    I would like to know CAB in other countries can do this? What your experience to empower CAB to participate in both dimensions? And what your experience to push investigator to ask consultation from CAB about scientific?

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #2358


      CAB can be involved throughout the protocol development process. They can have an impact on the scientific procedures. For instance, CAB members may question the number of blood draws needed in a study. CAB comments may not get incorporated into the protocol because it would compromise the scientific integrity of the study but scientists can provide feedback on why the procedures are necessary.

      Jauhara is correct. Sites must empower their CAB members to be a part of the protocol process as much as possible. Having input into the community is important, but it is not the only place community members can be involved.

      CABs can be empowered in many ways. Training CABs about the science behind the protocol may help the CAB members feel more comfortable about providing input on the scientific sections or asking questions on the testing methods being used in the study.

    • #2276

      Dear friend Patchara, I understand your concern. However researchers should do so much to support the CAB to be able to provide them with meaningful input on the scientific study. we appreciate the complexity of the protocol but they should endeavor to help them understand. Again, some members on the CAB may have scientific competence and able to provide input on the protocol. so at this level if the CAB is not consulted then, it is injustice prevailing.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • The forum ‘GPP Discussion Forum’ is closed to new topics and replies.