Micky Hingorani
Forum Replies Created
-
1. Formative research is actually like the foundation of Community engagement, makes you understand the community its structure, challenges, beliefs,it is after this mapping, is when you can be able to have logical engagement.
2. Community Engagement therefore is the building of a trusting relationship with community members that creates a supportive environment for research
-
In our site we majorly deal with the CAB members of which according to the site it appears to be sufficient, yet it does not represent all the stakeholders. The site staffs and the CAB members usually have routine monthly meetings where they get the updates all the upcoming protocol and discuss the recruitment strategies. The CAB members are the key community stakeholder in all the recruitment processes, National activities such as World Vaccine day and any upcoming community concerns involving the site.
-
Oops! i just noted I did not participate in this discussion.
Stakeholder engagement in terms of CAB happen monthly and has become part of the site routine. During the monthly meetings CAB members are give research updates and protocols undergoing regulatory review presented to them, and their input to Informed Consent sought. This then become recruitment focused and conversation around ongoing and upcoming protocols. The site believe they represent all stakeholders which is not true because they are broader than the CAB and when you have 13 members they can not represent all stakeholders
Stakeholder engagement as anticipated by GPP requires a new approach and that this course will help us understand and plan to reach out to all stakeholders continuously.
-
We are a multinetwork site and have been fortunate to have had trails running back to back in our community , we have manatined engagement of communities through general sensetizations and participation in national events such as the national candle light and world AIDS day commemorations. The site continues to sit on the District and City AIDS Cordinating Committee this is a forum where all stake holders implimenting HIV AIDS programs in the the district meet, we continues to use these forums to update and increase the research competency of the communities.
-
Communication with MSM stakeholder groups would be essential before intiating any part of the trial. This could have helped map out potential problems and brainstorm ways to avoid or alleviat these.
If possible, discussion with more formals agencies (e.g., police, legal representatives) may help in planning for any potential issues.
-
Hi Dagna,
this will help a lot. MSM stakeholder groups are informed and can be of great in this regard.
-
-
This is indeed a complex scenario. The fact that MSM is illegal makes it very difficult even to conduct the research. Now that this research has been given a go ahead there is need to look at who are influential in the site were the research is going to take place. After identifying these people it will be good to use them to mitigate some of the anticipated risks that the trial participants may face. This is not an easy one but definitely some solution should be found to ensure that participants are as much as possible protected.
-
I agrees pearson, CABS are vital 🙂
-
Being illegal. The community and media will need to be informed regarding the trial.
Regarding the trial protocol there should be measure taken to protect the participants.
Regarding the incident, local healthcare providers should be contacted,
The media should be made aware and a statement should be out.
To prevent reoccurrence more awareness should be made to the media
-
the site will need to work with the CAB to brainstroms on ways the current situatioin can be adrresed , and then meet the study participants at individaual and group level to understand and find ways in which the situatiions can be erectified. Community eduaction needs to be done to increase the research competency of the communities involved. Representives from the concerned community can also be invited for discusions that can center around the research and participation
Stake holders could have first been enganged and discusions on the potential harms and developments that can arise as the study starts, stake holders can take part in developing key messages for the communities on the study trail that could help the community understand what the research trails involves . The site would develop and issuse management plan on how these circumstances would be addressed
-
<span style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>1. The research team would have meeting with the CAB and a also implement the issue management plan. Work with the Human right advocate who is a member of the CAB on the best way that has been agreed to handle the issue.</span>
2. During the planning stage trial site should be assessed. Key opinion leader in that community should be engaged as well as MSM union leaders. They can discussion all the social harm that the group potential harm and the way the community perceive some social issues. Based on that the issue management plan should be developed with the inputs of these community stakeholder. A member of the Law enforcement agency should be a member of the CAB, they would handle any gender violence with advocacy group.
-
With the GPP guidelines , there was to be a proper mapping of the stakeholders, in this case including the Club owners and have an idea of the common social harms that occur in relation to the MSMs. By so doing issues management plan would be put in place to address the issue.
In most cases the fellow study participants will show up regardless of their schedule visits to share the matter. The PI/study coordinator will inform the CAB members who will together with the research team investigate the matter and address the situation accordingly.
-
Upon receiving the report of this incident of social harm related to study participation, my first line of action is to notify the PI and study team. Next I will call CAB members and other relevant stakeholders so that we can consult and come up with a communication and issues management plan to address and mitigate the issue and explore of preventing recurrence of the same.
What could have done earlier.
GPP was not implemented before the trial commenced, apparently the team had not done proper mapping to understand the sociocultural landscape, because what mattered and cause concern to the community could have been found out. When a research study seem to challenge community norms, a back lash should be anticipated, and a communication and issues management plan developed in consultation with relevant stake holders to prevent the crisis.
-
Inviting all trial participants in small groups to address the issue because once the rumours are spread fewer participants will attend their schedule visits. Involving the stakeholders and the media might also be solution because the word is spread easily by means of communication but that will be possible only if the sponsor agrees. Conducting community events in areas that we suspect have a little knowledge of the research and are against the research.
In the beginning of the study, research team was suppose to do research about the community and find out what might be the issues regarding the trial and come up with issues management plan. Targeting areas that most participants are coming from or where they spend most of their time, places like nightclubs and even include people from those areas in the community advisory board.
-
<strong style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>How would your team or site handle this situation?
- we will look for activist organisation that work with MSM
- we will explain the purpose of the study and partner with them for community education
- we will also conduct workshops together with the for our CAG and do gender sensitization
- we will also try to have pear educators from MSM
What could possibly have been done in advance to try to avoid this occurrence?
- you will need to operate as MSM do to avoid confrontation by community members who are not informed
- learn from MSM community how they survive acts of the community
- engage gatekeepers and identify leaders that are able to protect MSM