Barriers and Facilitators to Effective Implementation of the NAMWEZA Intervention in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania

Prevention Science - The NAMWEZA intervention was implemented, using a ten-session group format, to build skills targeting psychosocial vulnerabilities and enhancing HIV prevention among people...     

Implementing Community Engagement for Combination Prevention: Lessons Learnt From the First Year of the HPTN 071 (PopART) Community-Randomized Study

Key to the success of a HIV combination prevention strategy, including galvanizing the current push to roll out universal test and treat (UTT), is the involvement and buy-in of the populations that the strategy aims to reach. Drawing on the experiences of engaging with 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa in the design and implementation of a community-randomized study of combination HIV prevention including UTT, this paper reflects on the commitment to, approaches for and benefits of involving communities. Key lessons learnt include that all communities require continuous community engagement (CE) and engagement needs to be adapted to diverse local contexts. Intrinsic goals of CE, such as building trusting relationships between study stakeholders, are necessary precursors to instrumental goals which strengthen the research quality. Engaging the community for combination prevention requires that CE successfully bridges science and real life, paying attention to influences in the wider social landscape.     

Who is answerable to whom? Exploring the complex relationship between researchers,community and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members in two research studies in Zambia

Abstract

This paper explores the accountability relationships that arise between researchers, the community and community representative structures known as Community Advisory Boards (CABs). It draws on ethnographic and case study research that documented the history, recruitment, composition and representativeness of two CABs and their relationships with researchers and communities, carried out in two studies in Zambia between 2010 and 2014. The findings revealed contradictions, nuances and imbalances in actual community participation and representation. In both studies, the general population was not given the opportunity to participate in the election of their CAB representatives, and the elected CAB members themselves were initially told to have little or no direct contact with research participants whom they were supposed to represent (unless researchers dictated otherwise). Owing to the researchers’ monopoly of scientific knowledge, literacy and financial resources, power relations were imbalanced. Further, researchers were quick to ask for and formalise community commitment through the CABs whilst reticent about their own accountability to the community. Yet despite these imbalances and CABs lacking formal authority over researchers, CABs did have subtle powers arising from their wider influence in the community, which they could tap into to either support or resist research. To achieve a more balanced and open accountability between research stakeholders, more genuine participatory processes need to be built and sustained.