Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Yes, I have learned that through GPP one can address non clinical trial community matters and be able to involve service providers to continue providing care to participants post trial. Stakeholder engagement is key and sites can achieve more than conducting research but to enforce that co ownership of research activities in and with communities.
Hello, community engagement staff does other tasks as well, research assistant responsibilities. They track participants who have missed appointments, remind participants of their scheduled visits and collect locator information during screening visits. There is no or little budget that is allocated to community engagement/GPP unless that site has sourced funding to implement GPP.
At CAPRISA we keep contact with the community and previous participants, providing information on science advances, new prevention tools, trial results and participate in open community health days hosted by other organisations/local health clinics. We try to ensure that we are visible in the community at all times
The study team may have established places where different populations hang out including MSM, made contacts with club owners and know if the club is an MSM club or it is where MSM go and be comfortable. By that it would be easier to or not to leave information material at the club, have talks with everyone there. It will also help the research team to have reliable information about the club to the general community, when such statements are made (gay people are trained in a club). With regards to reacting after an incident, the research team may provide necessary referral support to MSM trial participants to institutions for care and support if required
Thank you for the question, if the protocol is sent to site, it gets reviewed by the CAB first. Broader stakeholders get a chance of reviewing it as a matter of information. The targeted population gets to have a view on the protocol, and their comments and recommendations are solicited to the final version. This happens through representatives of the population. The protocol and informed consents are reviewed separately, to get opinions especially on informed consents. It is much easier to review consent forms separately because if they are in the protocol, it is not very practical to exhaust the documents.
It has not affected my site, we do not have a social media page. But our sister site has a social media page, it helped them recruit low cohort participants, potential participants use the page efficiently.
As for my site, not so many people are on social media, i have explored a possibility of creating a page, by visiting local community social media, but i found that not so many people are on social media.
Methods that could be used to choose one stakeholder over the other, are
A survey that will assess stakeholder’s level of engagement, to be conducted with stakeholders
Hold engagement meetings to gauge a level of commitment from the stakeholder, one who will not prioritise stakeholder engagement a couple of times, shows lack of interest therefore you may want to engage that stakeholder for update meetings once in a quarter
This is an interesting question, prompting such good discussion. It is not an easy task to choose one stakeholder over the other. As a research site, we treat all stakeholder as important, but it is important to mention that stakeholders have different levels of interest on the subject matter, which is HIV prevention research. Most stakeholders are service providers, some view research sites as institutions that could meet they needs. Stakeholders that share the same interest as the research and participants are of priority. However, i would not want to cut all the ties with a stakeholder that has a lesser interest. For our site we have stakeholders that we have regular contacts with, and those that we get contact with for and during update times. It is important to highlight that involving stakeholders of the same age group as participants, plays an important role and ensures that the study population is well represented. Diversity is one of the keywords in stakeholder engagement.
The research team understands community engagement to a reasonable extent, other than the community programme team that has a better understanding of community engagement. Clinical and pharmacy teams, specifically understand the role of the community programme team, but they do not have an understanding of GPP. CAB members have been involved in GPP activities, for example, they all were issued a GPP book, discussed the content in bits during monthly meetings and an AVAC fellow-2011 visited my site to engage CAB members about GPP.
