ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Meaningful community engagement (CE) in HIV prevention research is crucial for successful and ethically robust study implementation. We conducted a qualitative study to understand the current CE practices in HIV prevention research and to identify expressed and implicit reasons behind translational gaps highlighted by communities and researchers. METHODS: For this exploratory qualitative study, we recruited a purposive sample of participants from Indian government-recognised key populations such as men who have sex with men, transgender women, people who inject drugs and female sex workers; general population adults and adolescents/youth; and researchers. We conducted 13 virtual focus groups (n = 86) between July and October 2021. Data were explored from a critical realist perspective and framing analysis (i.e., examining how the participants framed the narratives). RESULTS: Participants reported that study communities, especially those from key populations, were primarily involved in data collection, but not necessarily with optimal training. Involvement of communities before the start of the study (e.g., obtaining feedback on the study's purpose/design) or once the study is completed (e.g., sharing of findings) were highlighted as priorities for meaningful engagement. Participants suggested meaningful CE in all stages of the study: (1) before the study-to get inputs in finalising the study design, drafting comprehensible informed consent forms and culturally-appropriate data collection tools, and deciding on appropriate monetary compensation; (2) during the study-adequate training of community field research staff; and (3) after the study-sharing the draft findings to get community inputs, and involving communities in advocacy activities towards converting evidence into action, policy or programs. Timely and transparent communications with communities were explicitly stated as critical for gaining and maintaining trust. Mutual respect, reciprocity (e.g., appropriate monetary compensation) and robust community feedback mechanisms were considered critical for meaningful CE. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlighted the translational gaps and priority areas for capacity building to strengthen CE in HIV prevention research. It is not only important to engage communities at various stages of research but to understand that trust, dignity, respect, and reciprocity are fundamentally preferred ways of meaningful community engagement.
Engaging communities in HIV prevention research enhances the rigour and impact of research. We sought to understand the current community engagement practices and to identify how communities preferred to get involved in research. We explored these topics with key and general populations and researchers, by conducting 13 focus group discussions with 86 participants. We found that there was limited involvement of communities before the start of the study and after its completion, although trained community members were involved in data collection. Participants strongly suggested that the community should be involved throughoutbefore initiation, during the study and after study completion. Participants' preferred ways of engaging communities reflected that mutual respect, reciprocity and transparent communications are critical for meaningful and successful community engagement.
