Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
This course has been very valuable for me. I feel like I understand GPP a whole lot better now and I’ve become an advocate for Stakeholder Engagement in my organization as I’ve come to know the importance of it during all phases of research. I’ve also come to realize that there is still a lot to be done to get everyone thinking more in this direction.
Thank you so much to the facilitators for being so inspiring and helpful. Long live GPP!
Think about the CAPRISA case study highlighted in the online training module for Lesson 9. How did their comprehensive approach contribute to their success and network of relationships created over time? What are some examples of how you have sustained relationships with communities after and between trials?
Their approach to engaging the community and stakeholders went well beyond trial related issues. This shows real interest in the well-being of the community and not only a one-sided need in trial matters. They made the effort to investigate the area’s social and cultural environment which ensured that it wasn’t a misguided effort. By doing this they built trust and mutual respect. And when it came to trial-related activities they followed the correct channels.
As resources in between trials sometimes limit a site to contribute and partake in non-trial related stakeholder activities, sites need to be very creative to be able to still keep stakeholders engaged. It is also important to remember that keeping a relationship healthy with stakeholders does not always have to mean with a monetary contribution, but the basic willingness to help out in manpower already makes a big difference. So where you can’t give money, give some of your time.
<span style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>I find this part especially interesting, as my organization haven’t done a lot formative stakeholder engagement yet, but will most definitely need to in the near future, so we have quite a lot of questions around this: </span>
- At what stage of protocol writing do you engage with communities (synopsis, just prior to finalising, etc) as these are usually very short timelines.
- How much detail should be provided on the protocol?
- Would the protocol only go to sites that are selected to be part of the study or should all possible sites be included in the review?
From so many of the examples mentioned it is very clear that this is an essential step, so all of these comments are so informative!
1) What is your experience with stakeholder mapping? How do you use stakeholder maps at your site? Discuss how you (and your colleagues) determine the importance of involving one stakeholder versus another. For example, how do you determine who constitutes your CAB?
We as a company did mapping workshops at each of the study sites to map what they already have in place in their community engagement programs. This mapping tool is based on the “onion” graph and then lists all possible types of stakeholders from study team to participants to national stakeholders. At site we would discuss each type of stakeholder at site and the type of relationship (ie. healthy relationship with frequent contact or currently unhealthy relationship with negative or no contact) between the site contact and stakeholder. Usually from these meetings it became clearer where some more work or follow-up was required and why.
2) Stakeholder engagement is not easy and multiple partnerships can be hard to manage. How can you partner with stakeholders to create a community of sustained engagement? How can you get members of your research team to “buy-in” to sustained or longer-term stakeholder partnerships?
It is always important to show some interest in the stakeholders’ activities too, for instance if your stakeholder is a CAB member who is also involved in a community project, to try and be involved and supportive of non-trial-related activities and to try to collaborate on projects where both parties/causes benefit from it. This should get the research team more involved in partnerships too.
Research Training for CAB members are also a very good idea. This keeps members engaged and part of the cause instead of the relationship being only about giving feedback in one direction at a time. Once someone feels equipped to deal with a concept or situation, they will automatically feel more part of it and responsible for it.
A measurable indicator or metric of success of community engagement is sometimes only the absence of a negative situation. So like some of the examples mentioned here, approaching the group/stakeholder which was previously not engaged correctly in an open way seeking cooperation and resolving the situation. Most of the things that goes “wrong” around research are due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. Once this is cleared out and discussed and an agreement reached, the absence of the issue is then your measure of success.
In my team there is an increasing awareness about the importance of engagement with the different stakeholders and this has become more of a topic of conversation nowadays, which is great! We still have a long way to go regarding the implementation of active stakeholder engagement, but at least we are shifting in that direction quite quick now.
Hi All!
My name is Anja van der Westhuizen and I work for a non-profit organization called Aeras doing TB Vaccine research. I’m based in Cape Town and most of our trial sites are in South-Africa.
I’m very excited to learn more about GPP!
Although I’m not involved in HIV prevention research, the principles of GPP is also very relevant to TB prevention research, so I will apply it as such.
