Dorcas Kamuya

Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: Experiences from the KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya

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.

ENGAGING COMMUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN RESEARCH ETHICS IN LOW-INCOME SETTINGS: SELECTION AND PERCEPTIONS OF MEMBERS OF A NETWORK OF REPRESENTATIVES IN COASTAL KENYA

There is wide agreement that community engagement is important for many research types and settings, often including interaction with ‘representatives’ of communities. There is relatively little published experience of community engagement in international research settings, with available information focusing on Community Advisory Boards or Groups (CAB/CAGs), or variants of these, where CAB/G members often advise researchers on behalf of the communities they represent. In this paper we describe a network of community members (‘KEMRI Community Representatives’, or ‘KCRs’) linked to a large multi-disciplinary research programme on the Kenyan Coast. Unlike many CAB/Gs, the intention with the KCR network has evolved to be for members to represent the geographical areas in which a diverse range of health studies are conducted through being typical of those communities. We draw on routine reports, self-administered questionnaires and interviews to: 1) document how typical KCR members are of the local communities in terms of basic characteristics, and 2) explore KCRs perceptions of their roles, and of the benefits and challenges of undertaking these roles. We conclude that this evolving network is a potentially valuable way of strengthening interactions between a research institution and a local geographic community, through contributing to meeting intrinsic ethical values such as showing respect, and instrumental values such as improving consent processes. However, there are numerous challenges involved. Other ways of interacting with members of local communities, including community leaders, and the most vulnerable groups least likely to be vocal in representative groups, have always been, and remain, essential.

Evolving Friendships and Shifting Ethical Dilemmas: Fieldworkers’ Experiences in a Short Term Community Based Study in Kenya

Fieldworkers (FWs) are community members employed by research teams to support access to participants, address language barriers, and advise on culturally appropriate research conduct. The critical role that FWs play in studies, and the range of practical and ethical dilemmas associated with their involvement, is increasingly recognised. In this paper, we draw on qualitative observation and interview data collected alongside a six month basic science study which involved a team of FWs regularly visiting 47 participating households in their homes. The qualitative study documented how relationships between field workers and research participants were initiated, developed and evolved over the course of the study, the shifting dilemmas FWs faced and how they handled them. Even in this one case study, we see how the complex and evolving relationships between fieldworkers and study participants had important implications for consent processes, access to benefits and mutual understanding and trust. While the precise issues that FWs face are likely to depend on the type of research and the context in which that research is being conducted, we argue that appropriate support for field workers is a key requirement to strengthen ethical research practice and for the long term sustainability of research programmes.

'All her children are born that way': gendered experiences of stigma in families affected by sickle cell disorder in rural Kenya.

Objectives. To explore early experiences of sickle cell disorder (SCD) in families with a young affected child, and the way these experiences influence relations within families. To consider ways in which stigma could be counteracted in health and research programmes in sub Saharan Africa. Design. A qualitative study was conducted in a rural area of coastal Kenya including in-depth interviews with 13 families affected by SCD and 12 staff of a local biomedical research progamme. Purposive selection aimed to maximize diversity in socioeconomic and educational status, religion, severity of illness burden and religion amongst families and draw on relevant experience for staffs. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the constant comparative method for family interviews and a thematic framework approach for staff data. Results. Low initial recognition of SCD and its cause were associated with lay practices of surveillance within affected families, contributing to stigmatisation that occurred independently of genetic knowledge. Blame was often placed on mothers, including a risk of blame for misaligned paternity. Mothers are often particularly affected by SCD through the loss of independent livelihoods and their limited options in coping with this chronic condition. Conclusions. Mothers of children with SCD were particularly vulnerable to stigmatisation within families, with underlying structural influences that suggest these findings may apply to other similar settings in Africa, and have relevance for other genetic conditions. The potential, nature and form of stigmatisation point to the role of effective communication and SCD management in addressing for blame and discriminative effects of having a child with SCD. The findings highlight the importance of broader social programmes targeting underlying gender and economic inequalities.

Consent and community engagement in diverse research contexts: reviewing and developing research and practice

Consent and community engagement (CE) in health research are two aspects of a single concern—that research is carried out in a respectful manner where social value is maximized. There are important overlaps and interdependencies between consent and CE; for example, CE can provide insights into how best to tailor consent to context and can be an important component of consent processes. Engaging communities can also have intrinsic and instrumental value beyond consent; for example, as a means of showing respect and identifying appropriate ways of working respectfully. In this paper we critically examine how CE and consent processes are characterized, conducted, and evaluated in diverse health research contexts, and propose a preliminary research agenda to support future learning in these critical areas.Consent and community engagement (CE) in health research are two aspects of a single concern-that research is carried out in a respectful manner where social value is maximized. There are important overlaps and interdependencies between consent and CE; for example, CE can provide insights into how best to tailor consent to context and can be an important component of consent processes. Engaging communities can also have intrinsic and instrumental value beyond consent; for example, as a means of showing respect and identifying appropriate ways of working respectfully. In this paper we critically examine how CE and consent processes are characterized, conducted, and evaluated in diverse health research contexts, and propose a preliminary research agenda to support future learning in these critical areas.

Strengthening the informed consent process in international health research through community engagement: The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme Experience.

Samson Muchina Kinyanjui and colleagues from the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme discuss how they modified their informed consent processes by taking into account local social, cultural, and economic contexts in the design and administration of consent forms.

Field Workers at the Interface

This issue of Developing World Bioethics includes a collection of papers on intermediary staff and volunteers working at the interface between research institutions and researchers, and the communities from which research participants are recruited. ‘Field worker’ – a short hand commonly used in many research settings – refers here to those whose main role is face-to-face engagement with participants, who usually speak the participants’ first language, who are from or live in the study areas, and whose work entails moving around the study areas or health facilities. Field workers can be differentiated from medical or scientific staff for whom only part of their duties entail direct interaction with participants, and who are primarily based in the research institution or the clinic. In international research settings field workers are variously called research assistants, community interviewers, data collectors, fieldworkers, field assistants, assessors, follow up staff or defaulter tracers. Although some may hold first degrees or certificates, many are secondary school leavers without higher education opportunity; overall they are formally less qualified than clinical and research staff. Instead, field workers often have extensive informal training and experience from earlier volunteering and jobs in research centres or the NGO sector, which often require similar tasks and expertise.1 Their roles may include communicating about studies and mobilisation and follow-up of participants, conducting interviews, and carrying out relatively simple biomedical data-collection procedures such as taking temperatures and collecting finger prick blood samples.

Working with Community Health Workers as ‘Volunteers’ in a Vaccine Trial: Practical and Ethical Experiences and Implications

Community engagement is increasingly emphasized in biomedical research, as a right in itself, and to strengthen ethical practice. We draw on interviews and observations to consider the practical and ethical implications of involving Community Health Workers (CHWs) as part of a community engagement strategy for a vaccine trial on the Kenyan Coast. CHWs were initially engaged as an important network to be informed about the trial. However over time, and in response to community advice, they became involved in trial information sharing and identifying potential participants; thereby taking on roles that overlapped with those of employed fieldworkers (FWs). While CHWs involvement was generally perceived as positive and appreciated, there were challenges in their relations with FWs and other community members, partly related to levels and forms of remuneration. Specifically, payment of CHWs was not as high as for FWs and was based on ‘performance’. This extrinsic motivation had the potential to crowd out CHWs intrinsic motivation to perform their pre-existing community roles. CHWs remuneration potentially also contributed to CHWs distorting trial information to encourage community members to participate; and to researchers encouraging CHWs to utilize their social connections and status to increase the numbers of people who attended information giving sessions. Individual consent processes were protected in this trial through final information sharing and consent being conducted by trained clinical staff who were not embedded in study communities. However, our experiences suggest that roles and remuneration of all front line staff and volunteers involved in trials need careful consideration from the outset, and monitoring and discussion over time.

Approaching the community about screening children for a multicentre malaria vaccine trial

Community sensitisation, as a component of community engagement, plays an important role in strengthening the ethics of community-based trials in developing countries and is fundamental to trial success. However, few researchers have shared their community sensitisation strategies and experiences. We report on our perspective as researchers on the sensitisation activities undertaken for a phase II malaria vaccine trial in Kilifi District (Kenya) and Korogwe District (Tanzania), with the aim of informing and guiding the operational planning of future trials. We report wide variability in recruitment rates within both sites; a variability that occurred against a backdrop of similarity in overall approaches to sensitisation across the two sites but significant differences in community exposure to biomedical research. We present a range of potential factors contributing to these differences in recruitment rates, which we believe are worth considering in future community sensitisation plans. We conclude by arguing for carefully designed social science research around the implementation and impact of community sensitisation activities.

Feedback of research findings for vaccine trials: experiences from two malaria vaccine trials involving healthy children on the Kenyan Coast.

Internationally, calls for feedback of findings to be made an ‘ethical imperative’ or mandatory have been met with both strong support and opposition. Challenges include differences in issues by type of study and context, disentangling between aggregate and individual study results, and inadequate empirical evidence on which to draw. In this paper we present data from observations and interviews with key stakeholders involved in feeding back aggregate study findings for two Phase II malaria vaccine trials among children under the age of 5 years old on the Kenyan Coast. In our setting, feeding back of aggregate findings was an appreciated set of activities. The inclusion of individual results was important from the point of view of both participants and researchers, to reassure participants of trial safety, and to ensure that positive results were not over-interpreted and that individual level issues around blinding and control were clarified. Feedback sessions also offered an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-negotiate trial relationships and benefits, with potentially important implications for perceptions of and involvement in follow-up work for the trials and in future research. We found that feedback of findings is a complex but key step in a continuing set of social interactions between community members and research staff (particularly field staff who work at the interface with communities), and among community members themselves; a step which needs careful planning from the outset. We agree with others that individual and aggregate results need to be considered separately, and that for individual results, both the nature and value of the information, and the context, including social relationships, need to be taken into account.