Cargando…
Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study
BACKGROUND: Community engagement is a key component in health research. One of the ways health researchers ensure community engagement is through Community Advisory Boards (CABs). The capacity of CABs to properly perform their role in clinical research has not been well described in many resource li...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34911524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00733-0 |
_version_ | 1784615337378971648 |
---|---|
author | Mugenyi, Levicatus Mijumbi, Andrew Nanfuka, Mastula Agaba, Collins Kaliba, Fedress Semakula, Irene Seryazi Nazziwa, Winfred Badanga Ochieng, Joseph |
author_facet | Mugenyi, Levicatus Mijumbi, Andrew Nanfuka, Mastula Agaba, Collins Kaliba, Fedress Semakula, Irene Seryazi Nazziwa, Winfred Badanga Ochieng, Joseph |
author_sort | Mugenyi, Levicatus |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Community engagement is a key component in health research. One of the ways health researchers ensure community engagement is through Community Advisory Boards (CABs). The capacity of CABs to properly perform their role in clinical research has not been well described in many resource limited settings. In this study, we assessed the capacity of CABs for effective community engagement in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study with mixed methods. We used structured questionnaires and key informant interviews (KII) to collect data from CAB members, trial investigators, and community liaison officers. For quantitative data, we used descriptive statistics while for qualitative data we used content analysis. RESULTS: Seventy three CAB members were interviewed using structured questionnaires; 58.9% males, median age 49 years (IQR 24–70), 71.2% had attained tertiary education, 42.5% never attended any research ethics training, only 26% had a training in human subject protection, 30.1% had training in health research, 50.7% never attended any training about the role of CABs, and 72.6% had no guidelines for their operation. On the qualitative aspect, 24 KIIs cited CAB members to have some skills and ability to understand and review study documents, offer guidance on community norms and expectations and give valuable feedback to the investigators. However, challenges like limited resources, lack of independence and guidelines, and knowledge gaps about research ethics were cited as hindrances of CABs capacity. CONCLUSION: Though CABs have some capacity to perform their role in the Ugandan setting, their functionality is limited by lack of resources to facilitate their work, lack of independence, lack of guidelines for their operations and limited knowledge regarding issues of research ethics and protection of the rights of trial participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00733-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8672338 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86723382021-12-15 Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study Mugenyi, Levicatus Mijumbi, Andrew Nanfuka, Mastula Agaba, Collins Kaliba, Fedress Semakula, Irene Seryazi Nazziwa, Winfred Badanga Ochieng, Joseph BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Community engagement is a key component in health research. One of the ways health researchers ensure community engagement is through Community Advisory Boards (CABs). The capacity of CABs to properly perform their role in clinical research has not been well described in many resource limited settings. In this study, we assessed the capacity of CABs for effective community engagement in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study with mixed methods. We used structured questionnaires and key informant interviews (KII) to collect data from CAB members, trial investigators, and community liaison officers. For quantitative data, we used descriptive statistics while for qualitative data we used content analysis. RESULTS: Seventy three CAB members were interviewed using structured questionnaires; 58.9% males, median age 49 years (IQR 24–70), 71.2% had attained tertiary education, 42.5% never attended any research ethics training, only 26% had a training in human subject protection, 30.1% had training in health research, 50.7% never attended any training about the role of CABs, and 72.6% had no guidelines for their operation. On the qualitative aspect, 24 KIIs cited CAB members to have some skills and ability to understand and review study documents, offer guidance on community norms and expectations and give valuable feedback to the investigators. However, challenges like limited resources, lack of independence and guidelines, and knowledge gaps about research ethics were cited as hindrances of CABs capacity. CONCLUSION: Though CABs have some capacity to perform their role in the Ugandan setting, their functionality is limited by lack of resources to facilitate their work, lack of independence, lack of guidelines for their operations and limited knowledge regarding issues of research ethics and protection of the rights of trial participants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00733-0. BioMed Central 2021-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8672338/ /pubmed/34911524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00733-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Mugenyi, Levicatus Mijumbi, Andrew Nanfuka, Mastula Agaba, Collins Kaliba, Fedress Semakula, Irene Seryazi Nazziwa, Winfred Badanga Ochieng, Joseph Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title | Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title_full | Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title_fullStr | Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title_full_unstemmed | Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title_short | Capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
title_sort | capacity of community advisory boards for effective engagement in clinical research: a mixed methods study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34911524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00733-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mugenyilevicatus capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT mijumbiandrew capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT nanfukamastula capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT agabacollins capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT kalibafedress capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT semakulaireneseryazi capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT nazziwawinfredbadanga capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy AT ochiengjoseph capacityofcommunityadvisoryboardsforeffectiveengagementinclinicalresearchamixedmethodsstudy |