Abstract
A participatory HIV research project was conducted with sex workers (SW) and men who have sex with men (MSM) to understand epidemiological HIV dynamics and associated sociobehavioural factors among these vulnerable groups. We examine the impact of this project, critically analysing the processes undertaken and focusing on the advantages and the challenges faced. A partnership was built through two Community Advisory Boards (CABs) and a Scientific Commission (SC). Regular meetings, workshops, and focus groups were conducted with CABs, SC, and partners to assess the processes and outcomes of the project implementation. This participatory research produced change processes with impacts at different levels: individuals, community organizations, health professionals, academics, and policy-makers. Advantages of the participatory process were encountered but also challenges, evidencing the dynamic and complex nature of each project's stage. This project showed that participatory research can work as an intervention. Indeed, it triggered a dynamic and interactive process of knowledge coproduction and translation into effective community-oriented health actions and policies. The participatory research reproduced an innovative alliance for HIV prevention and sexual health promotion responsive to local needs and priorities. Further efforts are needed to systematize and evaluate the processes and impacts of participatory health research.
Highlights
The production of evidence that informs effective and sustainable health policies and actions is key to improving populations health and obtain health gain [1]
This is the case of sex workers (SW) and men who have sex with men (MSM) who are considered most vulnerable in the field of sexual health, namely, sexually transmitted infections as HIV infection [4,5,6]
In this article we examine the impact of a participatory HIV research project with SW and MSM
Summary
The production of evidence that informs effective and sustainable health policies and actions is key to improving populations health and obtain health gain [1]. Several authors advocate that such evidence produced through health research should (1) have quality, be focused on the health problem and be based on its context and the involved actors; (2) be relevant, i.e., meaningful for affected communities as well as beneficial, constructive, and useful; and (3) have applicability, be usable or implementable in order to improve health practices, health outcomes, and conditions affecting health [1, 2] This is relevant in the context of most vulnerable populations, who are frequently exposed to conditions and spaces of vulnerability that reinforce their vulnerability process and distinguish them from the other populations, which translates into health inequities [3].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
