Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
<span style=”font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;”> Discuss the link between formative research and community engagement for a trial. How are they alike? What are some differences between the two?</span>
Both Formative Research and community engagement enable the research team to gain knowledge and better understanding of the community where they intend to conduct the research.These two provide the research team with information regarding the local population, community power dynamics, channels of communication, sociology-cultural norms of the community, and the decision making processes in the community.
Both activities can be conducted informally and formally as long as the methodology yields results.
Differences
Formative research informs the community engagement process.So information gathered during the formative research will guide the activities of the community engagement process through out the trial process.
Formative research activities are encouraged to be conducted before the implementation of the study, so that the team has clear understanding of the community where they intend to work. On the other hand, community engagement is a continuous process from before trial starts, during the trial and after trial.
<span style=”font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;”>Has your site conducted formative research activities? How have you involved community stakeholders in formative research activities at your trial site? If not, how could you potentially involve them?</span>
Yes we have conducted formative research before.
We have engaged community stakeholders in the following ways;
1. Our institution has CAB, this is our first point of reference every when we want to engage the out side community. They help us penetrate other sub sections of the community that we are required to engage.
2. For example we had research study that involved Men who have sex with men, this was a new population that we had not with before, so we decided to look for organizations in Kampala that work closely with them. We held a series of meetings with the organization heads to provide us with insightful information to feed in the planning process of our proposed research.
3. Worked with peers leaders of the target population, to try and understand the study population and device means of working well with them throughout the study duration.
4. For other studies we have involved worked closely with the local government, health workers in the community, leadership structure in the community.
We all have to always to remember that the stakeholder to engage depends on the study in the pipeline.
JAUHARA
How to penetrate, one needs to move with their research identity card, sometimes a an introductory letter from the organisation, and you should have the basic information regarding what you want to introduce to the community. If you are not a scientist have the basic information, if you plan to meet a key stakeholder, on your team have a scientist who will explain the proposed trial to the team.
The stakeholder should not notice that the researchers are not sure of what they are planning to do so people who you plan to speak to the stakeholders should be well conversant with what they are discussing.
Jauhara
It is very important that as scientist start planning for the study, they engage their community engagement team to start on the formative research process. At this stage they identify the key stakeholders, identify time points of when they hope to engage them, and draft information that they would like to share with them. From that point, they stakeholders are also given opportunity to provide in put in the design and progression of the study on their community.
It is very important to identify the right key stakeholders and engaging them at the right time. Don’t depend on one methodology of getting feedback from the community, employe as many ways as possible. Both formal and informal ways. For example let the scientists attend community meetings, Radio talk shows, conduct focus group discussion with key people in the community. With all the above done as you plan a trial , you will end up having community buy-in.
At national level, scientists should not forget the key stakeholders like media, line ministries and departments.
Pat- I guess that helps to a certain level.
Jauhara
I agree with Marie, it is real success if stakeholder engagement is well done by the researchers. Various efforts by are put together to have this successful. It takes a committed staff designated to do that role on behalf of the Principle Investigator. It takes a budget that will facilitate community activities like hiring meeting venues, public address system, refreshments for the community people who attend the community meetings.
Leader, that is true that a well informed community will easily own the research in their community.
Therefore this holds community engagement as an important step in the HIV prevention research if the scientific efforts of finding a solution to HIV are to be co-owned by the community which is affected by the HIV.
Question 1.
A goal is what the project is trying to achieve, it is a big picture you want to achieve. The objective is the set of activities to guide the process to achieve the goal for the project in a specified period of time. Activities is what is done to achieve the objective.
Question 2.
Describe two benefits of conducting stakeholder engagement throughout the entire trial process, and describe two potential consequences of not meaningfully involving stakeholders. For each example, list a measurable indicator of success.
Constructive stakeholder engagement helps ensure the ethical and scientific quality of research as well as its relevance to community. Community stakeholders have unique expertise to contribute to the research process. They possess important knowledge and understanding of the local HIV epidemic, concerns of marginalized people and the local priorities that the trial funders, sponsors and implementers may lack. Measurable indicator of success- A community willing to join the research study i.e good recruitment and retention numbers.Engagement also improves stakeholder knowledge and understanding of the research processes, building research literacy and competencies. This in turn, helps stakeholders to contribute more effectively to the process of guiding the research and helps to address the power imbalance between the research team and the community stakeholders.
Measurable indicator of success- A well informed team of advocates for the study since their research literacy had been improved by the engagements they had with the researchers in their community.Consequences of not engaging stakeholders with an example of the outcome
When researchers do not meaning fully engage stakeholders, it might result in failure to develop trust and respect for the research that they are bringing to the community. Nontransparent situations maximize misunderstandings and increase chances of unnecessary conflict and controversy. For example a scientific research being conducted in a country while the Ministry of Health is not briefed about it. In this situation the community stakeholders may decide to refuse their fellow community members to take part in the study. This would lead to wasted resources from the side of the research sponsor/funder.
Failure for meaningful engagement may lead to sabotage from other broader stakeholders who may not have clear understanding of the research. Media that is not engaged very well on the new research in their country/community may decide to undo what the researchers are planning to do despite the importance it may have to bring on the public health table.
Dear Anne, I love your questions they are very insight full. They would help one gauge how far they have gone to understand the community they are working in, in particular doing research in, whether the research they are doing is relevant to where they are conducting it from and whether community has contribution to the whole research that is taking place in their area.
I would rate myself at 6 in terms of Biomedical research competency.
For the second question, it is challenge in the area of understanding community needs and priorities! Little is done to explore community needs and priorities since the research ideas are developed from outside the participating community.For example most protocols that we have implemented have been developed from the US, the implementing research site does little input the process, and eventually the community need and priority is not reflected anywhere. The funder/ sponsor of the protocol has his agenda and it takes precedent.
In order to engage stakeholders, a combination of tools have to be used. they include; conducting workshops, training, breakfast meetings, briefing meetings, community meetings, bazzare, radio talk shows, engaging the leadership structure of the community etc. Through these the population engaged would improve their research competency which eventually enhances mutual understanding.
I still agree these are key issues to be done.
I don’t agree to the statement that research competency is difficult to educate to some stakeholders. Researchers are supposed to make sure that all that they have to bring in the community is understood by all stakeholders. They are expected to simplify all the science that there is to help the stakeholders despite their educational background, they should be made to understand the viability of the research brought to them.
Terminologies that are not clear should not be used to avoid confusion and later build a transparent relationship within both parties.
Again if researchers plan to educate the stakeholders, socially and culturally acceptable language should be used that the stakeholders own and identify with what they are being taught to understand.
In a nutshell, it is the responsibility of the researchers to educate his / her stakeholders so that they understand what he or she plans to bring to the identified community.
Dear Teamates,
While we all appreciate the importance of stakeholder engagement, researchers should appreciate that efforts and resources are require to build a research literacy base among stakeholders so that they understand the work the researchers are doing and eventually provide meaning full feedback.
In think you need to ask your self a number of questions related to what you plan to do, where you plan to do it,who you are going to work with to have it implemented, and how you plan to do it, if you get answers to the mentioned questions, then you have the stakeholders. That is one of my best tools that i use.
Then also you can ask yourself who is affected by what i plan to do, that also give you a team of stakeholders.
Lets hear from the reset on how they do it.
JJ- Jolly Jau
Dear Marie, i appreciate the fact that your community is naive in the area of research, that the research team does not appreciate the importance of stakeholder engagement, but it is at this stage that the GPP practicability is at the highest play. The researchers themselves have to appreciate the value of stakeholder engagement and then the community its self should appreciate it. This requires alot of effort to have these two communities appreciate stakeholder engagement not forgetting the resources.
Actually the researchers need to first appreciate the stakeholder engagement, and its from there that you will have other stakeholders appreciate it.
To all of us lets plan ahead of the community in terms of crisis management in regards to research related issues, don’t wait for the rumor to start in community and then you seek to clarify and community is seeing you for the first time. That is wrong, the stakeholders will view you as some one at the defensive.
And the media!!!!
These tools will help us evaluate our efforts in the field!!!!
Staff outside the community engagement office most times ask what we do in the field …………. with these tools available…. we are covered.
Qn 1. The stakeholders in the research process are vary, from the grass root level to the global level but all are important in their capacities. They are directly affected by the research process, in these communities is where the study participants are recruited, all the effects of the research gets directly to these people. To have the research succeed, one needs these groups to buy in the idea of research yet to be conducted.When the outcome of the study is obtained, its these people that get the effect directly.Stakeholders may include in my country context, the potential study participants, communities where they live, leadership structures of the communities they live in, ministry of health, regulatory bodies, the funders of the studies, site staff etc.
The funders mobilize for resources the support the research to tale place and through that the world receives a public health intervention. The regulatory bodies are the authority eyes that look at what the scientists are doing so that they don’t carry out unethical processes to the volunteers in these studies.
Some stakeholders influence policies they are therefore important because they cause health change in society eg the ministry of health.So anything related to health must be made clear to them to advocate for it.QN2. To a high extent my team understands the value of stakeholder engagement. This is so because of the effort they in put in to have this achieved.
a)We have a well established section responsible for community engagement with fully responsible staff to foster that process.
b) The outreach office works closely with the researchers to build research literacy in the communities where we conduct research
c)They appreciate the fact that stakeholders at different levels are engaged and clarity to their questions, misunderstandings, and mis- conceptions are cleared to have a harmonized research community.
d)The organisation has annual budget that looks at engaging stakeholders
e) Community engagement plan that facilitates when, how and where to engage stakeholders of different levels.
f)Sessions are arranged to educate other research staff about the importance of the stakeholder engagement.
g) We occasionally engage media to update them on what we are doing.Hi Lion,
This is Jolly Jau, that M&E training is very crucial, at this time when researchers are buying in to implementing GPP’s theme areas, they would want to look at how value for money invested in stakeholder engagement has resulted in improving research uptake in the communities where they work.
I had always thought about monitoring and evaluation of the community engagement mechanisms, Leader you are the game. Looking forward to the sharing the tools.
Take care all.
Jolly Jau-Uganda
Dear all,
I am a trainee on the GPP course, I am very excited to reach this far with the GPP. I am currently coordinating the Community Outreach office at Makerere University Walter Reed Project. The nature of our organisation’s work is monitoring and investigating communicable disease threats of public health importance in Uganda and develop, evaluate, and provide interventions to mitigate the threats.
My office deals in coordinating outreach efforts, networking and stakeholder engagements on behalf of the organisation. I believe in depth understanding of the GPP, will enrich my skills in interacting with the outside community in reference to HIV prevention.
Taking an online course in the third world country like mine is not easy, but I am very hopeful I will succeed.
My sincere regards to you all, looking forward to interacting with you all.
