Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
As we try various ways of trying to ensure retention in trials, we need to do this recognizing that our actions are not tantamount to coercion and are not exerting undue influence to study participants especially those in the control arm and equally those in the intervention. This is particularly so for operations research kind of trials which can be significantly affected by attempts by researchers to have participants in the study. So, my key word is , we can try whatever we can but we must be clear that we are not in any way exerting influence for participants to remain in the study because of our retention plans. Lets create conditions that are the same level as standard of care.
In a study we carried out with interest in evaluating a livelihoods project we had supported, our involvement of stakeholders was very limited. Largely this was because we had not budgeted well on how many and who to involve right from the onset of the program. We did not experience much in terms of negative feedback but when results came out, we knew very well that these results lacked stakeholder endorsement.
These are wonderful discussions and i love the learning. My worry though is on what exactly we mean by Community? who is this “community” in either the CAG or CAB. What constitutes or what should constitutes that which we refer to as the community for a CAG or CAB to be considered a fair representation of the community?
Team, Please help in dissecting and responding to this confusion i have.
