Case studies from the experience of early career researchers in East Africa in building community engagement in research

Background: In this paper, we explain how three early career researchers actively engaged community members in their health research projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and what was learnt from the experience. The research project in Kenya was on camel trypanosomiasis and the role of camel biting keds (or louse flies) in disease transmission. The project in Tanzania looked at the effect of human immunodeficiency virus and antiretroviral therapy on fertility and ascertained the trends in the use of family planning services amongst women of reproductive age. The focus of the project in Uganda was the implementation of maternal death surveillance and the response policy to determine the cause of maternal deaths and how they might be prevented. Methods: In the three different settings, efforts to ensure local community engagement provided a focus for the researchers to hone their skills in explaining research concepts and working in partnership with community members to co-develop ideas, their research methods and outputs. Results: Involvement of communities in scientific research, which entailed a two-way mutual engagement process, led to (i) generation of new research ideas that shaped the work, (ii) strengthened mutual trust, and (iii) promoted uptake of research findings. Conclusion: Our key findings strongly support the need for considering community engagement as one of the key components in research studies.

Background: In this paper, we explain how three early career researchers actively engaged community members in health research in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in their research projects, and what was learnt from the experience. The research project in Kenya was on camel trypanosomiasis and the role of camel biting keds (or louse flies) in disease transmission. The project in Tanzania looked at the effect of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and antiretroviral therapy on fertility and ascertained the trends in the use of family planning services amongst women of reproductive age. The focus of the project in Uganda was the implementation of maternal death surveillance and the response policy to determine the cause of maternal deaths and how they might be prevented. Methods: In the three different settings, efforts to ensure local community engagement provided a focus for the researchers to hone their skills in explaining research concepts and working in partnership with community members to co-develop ideas, their research methods and outputs. Results: Involvement of communities in scientific research, which entailed a two-way mutual engagement process, led to (i) generation of new research ideas that shaped the work, (ii) strengthened mutual trust, and (iii) promoted uptake of research findings. Conclusions: Our key findings strongly support the need for considering community engagement as one of the key components in research studies.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community engagement is a commonly used term, but is complex in both meaning and application. In order to help academic institutions and administrators develop infrastructure to promote and support community engagement and to help investigators work productively with communities, this analysis discusses the major components of community engagement in research on both the institutional and individual project levels as well as the interplay between them. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A literature synthesis conducted by a community engagement in research committee at 1 CTSA institution that examined the myriad factors related to effective community engagement in research identified across multiple disciplines was used to distill the major factors identified, assesses the interplay of the identified factors, and produce a conceptual model to help administrators and investigators apply best practices in engaging communities in clinical and translational research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This work takes a concept—community engagement in research—that is often stated and discussed, but is highly complex and challenging to implement—and identifies and discusses the multiple, interrelated factors germane to it. The model illustrates that while community engagement in research is implemented in the context of individual projects, a deep and continual interplay between individual projects and the goals, capacity, and policies of research institutions is needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results are presented through a conceptual framework which displays the major components needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement in clinical and translational research. In addition, the conceptual framework presented will provide assistance to those developing approaches to measure and evaluate institutional readiness for community engagement in research as well as the effectiveness of individual community engagement efforts.

Introductionmeaningful community engagement is increasingly being considered the major determinant of successful research, innovation and intervention uptake. Even though there is available literature recommending community engagement in health research, there are still knowledge gaps in how communities might be best engaged in Sub-Saharan Africa. We, therefore, synthesized the existing literature on the current practices, barriers and facilitators, ethical considerations, and gender mainstreaming in the engagement of communities in research in sub-Saharan Africa.Methodsthis synthesis was developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A combination of keywords and medical subject headings was used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health Library through OVID SP, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, CINAHL, WHO Afro Library, WHO Global Index Medicus and the National Institute for Health Research, for all literature published between 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2021.Resultsthirty articles met our inclusion criteria. The key reported facilitators of effective community engagement in research included appropriate community entry and engagement of stakeholders. Barriers to effective community engagement in research included the availability of prohibitive cultural, historical and religious practices; geographical/spatial limitations, difficulties in planning and executing community engagement activities and communication barriers. Awareness creation and sensitization on the research through drama, social media, documentaries, and community durbars are some of the existing practices adopted in engaging communities in research. Gender mainstreaming was not considered appropriately in the engagement of communities in research, as only a few studies made provisions for gender considerations, and most of the time, interchanging gender for sex. Respect for autonomy, privacy and informed consent were the main ethical issues reported.Conclusiongender mainstreaming and ethical standards were reported as important, but not explored in depth. Gender as a social construct needs to be carefully integrated in the entire research cycle. Clear ethical concerns within a research project have to be co-discussed by the research team, community members and potential research participants.

The research question was what studies are available that have assessed community engagement in the health services research on soil-transmitted helminths? We aimed to synthesise evidence on how communities were engaged in health services research on soil-transmitted helminths in low-and-middle-income countries of the Asia-Pacific Region. We focused on this region because soil-transmitted helminths are endemic, and their burden is significant in this region. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were searched in health-related databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Google Scholar. We selected studies based on the selection criteria set for this review. We collected textual information about the type of health services research, the degree of community engagement, the research phases involved, and the barriers/enablers affecting community engagement in research since they are pertinent to our review question and objective. Ten studies from seven countries in the Asia Pacific region were identified for this review. Albeit with variation in the extent of their involvement, various forms of communities/groups within communities were included such as Aboriginal communities, local communities, school children and their parents, school teachers and headmasters of schools, heads of villages, religious leaders, and so on. Overall, community engagement in health services research focused on of soil-transmitted helminths was limited. Six studies (60%) had collaboration at ‘developing methodology’, mainly through an explanation of the objectives of the study or study process to be conducted. Seven studies (70%) revealed community participation in soil-transmitted helminths at the “data collection” stage. Only one study (10%) documented that a community leader was involved as a co-author, reflecting an involvement in ‘report writing’ and further ‘dissemination’. Findings suggest that there were various forms of community engagement in various aspects of the health services research context. Overall, there was moderate level of participation, but there was insufficient information on the partnership between various stakeholders, which prevented in-depth analysis of the engagement. Future health services research on soil-transmitted helminth interventions needs to be carefully planned, well designed, grounded in principles of community engagement, and designed methodologically to allow in-depth participation by communities in all stages of the research.

The research question was what studies are available that have assessed community engagement in the health services research on soil-transmitted helminths? We aimed to synthesise evidence on how communities were engaged in health services research on soil-transmitted helminths in low-and-middle-income countries of the Asia-Pacific Region. We focused on this region because soil-transmitted helminths are endemic, and their burden is significant in this region. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were searched in health-related databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Google Scholar. We selected studies based on the selection criteria set for this review. We collected textual information about the type of health services research, the degree of community engagement, the research phases involved, and the barriers/enablers affecting community engagement in research since they are pertinent to our review question and objective. Ten studies from seven countries in the Asia Pacific region were identified for this review. Albeit with variation in the extent of their involvement, various forms of communities/groups within communities were included such as Aboriginal communities, local communities, school children and their parents, school teachers and headmasters of schools, heads of villages, religious leaders, and so on. Overall, community engagement in health services research focused on of soil-transmitted helminths was limited. Six studies (60%) had collaboration at 'developing methodology', mainly through an explanation of the objectives of the study or study process to be conducted. Seven studies (70%) revealed community participation in soil-transmitted helminths at the "data collection" stage. Only one study (10%) documented that a community leader was involved as a co-author, reflecting an involvement in 'report writing' and further 'dissemination'. Findings suggest that there were various forms of community engagement in various aspects of the health services research context. Overall, there was moderate level of participation, but there was insufficient information on the partnership between various stakeholders, which prevented in-depth analysis of the engagement. Future health services research on soil-transmitted helminth interventions needs to be carefully planned, well designed, grounded in principles of community engagement, and designed methodologically to allow in-depth participation by communities in all stages of the research.

Partnerships between academia and the community led to historic advances in HIV and paved the way for ongoing community engagement in research. Three decades later, we review the state of community engagement in HIV research, discuss best practices as supported by literature, explore innovations, and identify ongoing gaps in knowledge. The community of people living with and at risk for HIV remains actively involved in the performance of HIV research. However, the extent of participation is highly variable despite long standing and established principles and guidelines of good participatory practices (GPP) and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Current literature reveals that known barriers to successful community engagement continue to exist such as power differences, and poor scientific or cultural competency literacy. Several high-quality studies share their experiences overcoming these barriers and demonstrate the potential of CBPR through reporting of qualitative and quantitative outcomes. Greater time and attention should be placed on the development of community engagement in HIV research. A large body of literature, including innovative cross-cutting approaches, exists to guide and inform best practices and mitigate common barriers. However, we recognize that true growth and expansion of CBPR within HIV and in other fields will require a greater breadth of research reporting qualitative and quantitative outcomes.

Community-academic partnerships (C-APs) have been central to advancements in HIV research over the past 4 decades and were specifically called for in the national Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. Community engagement in research, particularly in HIV research, plays a critical role in prioritizing community needs in all stages of HIV research and intervention implementation. To address the known gaps in building strong C-APs, 2 EHE Implementation Science Consultation Hubs collaboratively facilitated 2 webinars with a panel of expert community leaders. The panel discussions explored (1) what researchers need to know to create equitable C-APs and (2) best practices for navigating power in C-APs. After the webinars, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the 131 EHE research projects partnered with community-based organizations or faith-based organizations between 2019 and 2023 to examine the community engagement in research relationships between EHE academic researchers and implementation partners. Community panelists identified areas for academic researchers to prioritize, including building relationships with community partners, engaging equitably in partnership processes, sharing use of resources, and paying attention to community history. The quantitative analysis found 58% of EHE researchers are in new collaborations, lasting 2 years or less, with their implementation partner, and have not yet established robust partnerships. This study identifies strategies for strengthening community engagement in HIV research and sustaining equitable C-APs for existing EHE supplement recipients that can be integrated into future EHE research and implementation strategies to help end the HIV epidemic in the United States.

Background: Evaluation of community and public engagement in research is important to deepen understanding of how engagement works and to enhance its effectiveness. Theories of change have been recommended for evaluating community engagement, for their ability to make explicit intended outcomes and understandings of how engagement activities contribute to these outcomes. However, there are few documented examples of using theories of change for evaluation of engagement. This article reports experience of using theories of change to develop a framework for evaluating community engagement in research at a clinical research organisation in Malawi. We describe the steps used to develop theories of change, and the way theories of change were used to design data collection plans. Based on our experience, we reflect on the advantages and challenges of the theory of change approach. Methods: The theories of change and evaluation framework were developed through a series of workshops and meetings between engagement practitioners, monitoring and evaluation staff, and researchers. We first identified goals for engagement, then used ‘so that’ chains to clarify pathways and intermediate outcomes between engagement activities and goals. Further meetings were held to refine initial theories of change, identify priority information needs, and define feasible evaluation methods. Results: The theory of change approach had several benefits. In particular, it helped to construct an evaluation framework focused on relevant outcomes and not just activities. The process of reflecting on intended goals and pathways also helped staff to review the design of engagement activities. Challenges included practical considerations around time to consider evaluation plans among practitioners (a challenge for evaluation more generally regardless of method), and more fundamental difficulties related to identifying feasible and agreed outcomes. Conclusions: These experiences from Malawi provide lessons for other research organisations considering use of theories of change to support evaluation of community engagement.

Background: Evaluation of community and public engagement in research is important to deepen understanding of how engagement works and to enhance its effectiveness. Theories of change have been recommended for evaluating community engagement, for their ability to make explicit intended outcomes and understandings of how engagement activities contribute to these outcomes. However, there are few documented examples of using theories of change for evaluation of engagement. This article reports experience of using theories of change to develop a framework for evaluating community engagement in research at a clinical research organisation in Malawi. We describe the steps used to develop theories of change, and the way theories of change were used to design data collection plans. Based on our experience, we reflect on the advantages and challenges of the theory of change approach. Methods: The theories of change and evaluation framework were developed through a series of workshops and meetings between engagement practitioners, monitoring and evaluation staff, and researchers. We first identified goals for engagement, then used 'so that' chains to clarify pathways and intermediate outcomes between engagement activities and goals. Further meetings were held to refine initial theories of change, identify priority information needs, and define feasible evaluation methods. Results: The theory of change approach had several benefits. In particular, it helped to construct an evaluation framework focused on relevant outcomes and not just activities. The process of reflecting on intended goals and pathways also helped staff to review the design of engagement activities. Challenges included practical considerations around time to consider evaluation plans among practitioners (a challenge for evaluation more generally regardless of method), and more fundamental difficulties related to identifying feasible and agreed outcomes. Conclusions: These experiences from Malawi provide lessons for other research organisations considering use of theories of change to support evaluation of community engagement.

BackgroundThe exponential growth of health information technology has the potential to facilitate community engagement in research. However, little is known about the use of health information technology in community-engaged research, such as which types of health information technology are used, which populations are engaged, and what are the research outcomes.ObjectiveThe objectives of this scoping review were to examine studies that used health information technology for community engagement and to assess (1) the types of populations, (2) community engagement strategies, (3) types of health information technology tools, and (4) outcomes of interest.MethodsWe searched PubMed and PCORI Literature Explorer using terms related to health information technology, health informatics, community engagement, and stakeholder involvement. This search process yielded 967 papers for screening. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, a total of 37 papers were analyzed for key themes and for approaches relevant to health information technology and community engagement research.ResultsThis analysis revealed that the communities engaged were generally underrepresented populations in health-related research, including racial or ethnic minority communities such as Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Latino ethnicity, and communities from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The studies focused on various age groups, ranging from preschoolers to older adults. The studies were also geographically spread across the United States and the world. Community engagement strategies included collaborative development of health information technology tools and partnerships to promote use (encompassing collaborative development, use of community advisory boards, and focus groups for eliciting information needs) and use of health information technology to engage communities in research (eg, through citizen science). The types of technology varied across studies, with mobile or tablet-based apps being the most common platform. Outcomes measured included eliciting user needs and requirements, assessing health information technology tools and prototypes with participants, measuring knowledge, and advocating for community change.ConclusionsThis study illustrates the current landscape at the intersection of health information technology tools and community-engaged research approaches. It highlights studies in which various community-engaged research approaches were used to design culturally centered health information technology tools, to promote health information technology uptake, or for engagement in health research and advocacy. Our findings can serve as a platform for generating future research upon which to expand the scope of health information technology tools and their use for meaningful stakeholder engagement. Studies that incorporate community context and needs have a greater chance of cocreating culturally centered health information technology tools and better knowledge to promote action and improve health outcomes.

Community engagement is an important method of knowledge translation in spinal cord injury (SCI) research where researchers collaborate with people with lived experience, care partners, and other research users to improve the quality of research. This perspective article aims to promote community engagement in SCI research by describing useful resources for its implementation and providing an example project using the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (NASCIC) process for such partnerships. Researchers from the Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences' (JCRS) Center for Outcomes and Measurement engaged NASCIC to create an advisory committee composed of four people living with SCI to make recommendations for the methods of a large-scale study to develop a clinical outcome assessment. The advisory committee made usable recommendations for enhancing recruitment methods and reducing burden and barriers to participation. The successful partnership between NASCIC and JCRS shows the feasibility and value of SCI community engagement in research.

Community engagement is an innovative and required component for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the extent of community engagement in NIH-funded research has not been previously examined. This study assessed baseline prevalence of community engagement activities among NIH-funded studies at a large Midwestern university with a CTSA. An online survey was e-mailed to principal investigators of recent NIH-funded studies (N = 480). Investigators were asked to identify what types of community engagement activities had occurred for each study. Responses were received for 40.4% (194/480) of studies. Overall, 42.6% reported any community engagement activities. More collaborative types of engagement (e.g., community advisory board) were less common than activities requiring less engagement (e.g., sharing study results with community members). Studies with more collaborative community engagement were less likely to be described as basic or preclinical research compared to all other studies. Given NIH's inclusive call for community engagement in research, relatively few NIH-funded studies reported community engagement activities, although this study used a broad definition of community and a wide range of types of engagement. These findings may be used to inform the goals of CTSA community engagement programs.

There is wide acknowledgement of the need for community engagement in biomedical research, particularly in international settings. Recent debates have described theoretical approaches to identifying situations where this is most critical and potential mechanisms to achieve it. However, there is relatively little published experience of community engagement in practice. A major component of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Wellcome Trust Research Programme is centred on Kilifi District General Hospital and surrounding community of 240,000 local residents. Documented community perceptions of the research centre are generally positive, but many indicate a low understanding of research and therapeutic misconceptions of its activities. As in other settings, these misunderstandings have contributed to concerns and rumours, and potentially undermine ethical aspects of research and local trust in the institution. Through a series of consultative activities, a community engagement strategy has been developed in Kilifi to strengthen mutual understanding between community members and the Centre. One important component is the establishment of a representative local resident network in different geographic locations commonly involved in research, to supplement existing communication channels. Early implementation of the strategy has provided new and diverse opportunities for dialogue, interaction and partnership building. Through the complex social interactions inherent in the community engagement strategy, the centre aims to build context specific ethical relations with local residents and to strengthen understanding of how ethical principles can be applied in practice. Evaluations over time will assess the effectiveness and sustainability of these strategies, provide generalisable information for similar research settings, and contribute to debates on the universality of ethical principles for research. This paper aims to summarise the rationale for community engagement in research, drawing on published literature and local findings, to outline the process of community engagement in Kilifi and to describe issues emerging from its development and early implementation.

Background: Community engagement and involvement (CEI) in research usually depends on face-to-face interactions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented such interactions because of national lockdowns and social distancing. This paper highlights the ways in which early career researchers from East Africa tackled CEI activities during the pandemic. Methods: We provide four case examples that illustrate how early-career researchers based in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, deployed different approaches and initiatives to community-engaged research during the pandemic to encourage participation and uptake of research findings. Results: All the three early-career researchers attempted to use virtual/digital means to implement the CEI. However, in each country, this attempt was unsuccessful because of poor connectivity, as well as many poorer students lacking access to telephones and computers. Nevertheless, the researchers effectively engaged the students using different activities (making up songs, drawing comics, and taking part in quizzes) once the schools reopened. Conclusion: These results highlight the complexity of implementing community engagement and involvement in health research when face-to-face interaction is not possible. The findings are relevant to researchers who wish to incorporate community engagement in their research and initiatives.