Dataset Information

Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Achieving effective community engagement has been an objective of U.S. National Institutes of Health-funded HIV research efforts, including participation of persons with HIV. Community Advisory Boards (CABs) have remained the predominant model for community engagement since their creation in 1989. As HIV cure-directed research efforts have grown into larger academic-industry partnerships directing resources toward both basic and clinical research under the Martin Delaney Collaboratories (MDC), community input models have also evolved. The BEAT-HIV MDC Collaboratory, based at The Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, United States, implemented a three-part model for community engagement that has shown success in providing greater impact for community engagement across basic, biomedical, and social sciences research efforts.

Discussion

In this paper, we review the case study of the formation of the BEAT-HIV Community Engagement Group (CEG) model, starting with the historical partnership between The Wistar Institute as a basic research center and Philadelphia FIGHT as a not-for-profit community-based organization (CBO), and culminating with the growth of community engagement under the BEAT-HIV MDC. Second, we present the impact of a cooperative structure including a Community Advisory Board (CAB), CBO, and researchers through the BEAT-HIV CEG model, and highlight collaborative projects that demonstrate the potential strengths, challenges, and opportunities of this model. We also describe challenges and future opportunities for the use of the CEG model.

Conclusions

Our CEG model integrating a CBO, CAB and scientists could help move us towards the goal of effective, equitable and ethical engagement in HIV cure-directed research. In sharing our lessons learned, challenges and growing pains, we contribute to the science of community engagement into biomedical research efforts with an emphasis on HIV cure-directed research. Our documented experience with implementing the CEG supports greater discussion and independent implementation efforts for this model to engage communities into working teams in a way we find a meaningful, ethical, and sustainable model in support of basic, clinical/biomedical, social sciences and ethics research.

SUBMITTER: Dube K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10248979 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.

Dubé Karine K Peterson Beth B Jones Nora L NL Onorato Amy A Carter William B WB Dannaway Christine C Johnson Steven S Hayes Roy R Hill Marcus M Maddox Rease R Riley James L JL Shull Jane J Metzger David D Montaner Luis J LJ

Research involvement and engagement 20230608 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Achieving effective community engagement has been an objective of U.S. National Institutes of Health-funded HIV research efforts, including participation of persons with HIV. Community Advisory Boards (CABs) have remained the predominant model for community engagement since their creation in 1989. As HIV cure-directed research efforts have grown into larger academic-industry partnerships directing resources toward both basic and clinical research under the Martin Delaney Col ...[more]

PMID: 37291622

Similar Datasets

Project description:Since the emergence of HIV and AIDS in the early 1980s, the development of safe and effective therapies has accompanied a massive increase in our understanding of the fundamental processes that drive HIV biology. As basic HIV research has informed the development of novel therapies, HIV inhibitors have been used as probes for investigating basic mechanisms of HIV-1 replication, transmission, and pathogenesis. This positive feedback cycle has led to the development of highly effective combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), which has helped stall the progression to AIDS, prolong lives, and reduce transmission of the virus. However, to combat the growing rates of virologic failure and toxicity associated with long-term therapy, it is important to diversify our repertoire of HIV-1 treatments by identifying compounds that block additional steps not targeted by current drugs. Most of the available therapeutics disrupt early events in the replication cycle, with the exception of the protease (PR) inhibitors, which act at the virus maturation step. HIV-1 maturation consists of a series of biochemical changes that facilitate the conversion of an immature, noninfectious particle to a mature infectious virion. These changes include proteolytic processing of the Gag polyprotein by the viral protease (PR), structural rearrangement of the capsid (CA) protein, and assembly of individual CA monomers into hexamers and pentamers that ultimately form the capsid. Here, we review the development and therapeutic potential of maturation inhibitors (MIs), an experimental class of anti-HIV-1 compounds with mechanisms of action distinct from those of the PR inhibitors. We emphasize the key insights into HIV-1 biology and structure that the study of MIs has provided. We will focus on three distinct groups of inhibitors that block HIV-1 maturation: (1) compounds that block the processing of the CA-spacer peptide 1 (SP1) cleavage intermediate, the original class of compounds to which the term MI was applied; (2) CA-binding inhibitors that disrupt capsid condensation; and (3) allosteric integrase inhibitors (ALLINIs) that block the packaging of the viral RNA genome into the condensing capsid during maturation. Although these three classes of compounds have distinct structures and mechanisms of action, they share the ability to block the formation of the condensed conical capsid, thereby blocking particle infectivity.

Project description:ObjectivesBroad international guidelines and studies in the context of individual clinical trials highlight the centrality of community stakeholder engagement in conducting ethically rigorous HIV prevention trials. We explored and identified challenges and facilitators for community stakeholder engagement in biomedical HIV prevention trials in diverse global settings. Our aim was to assess and deepen the empirical foundation for priorities included in the GPP guidelines and to highlight challenges in implementation that may merit further attention in subsequent GPP iterations.MethodsFrom 2008-2012 we conducted an embedded, multiple case study centered in Thailand, India, South Africa and Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with respondents from different trial-related subsystems: civil society organization representatives, community advocates, service providers, clinical trialists/researchers, former trial participants, and key HIV risk populations. Interviews/focus groups were recorded, and coded using thematic content analysis. After intra-case analyses, we conducted cross-case analysis to contrast and synthesize themes and sub-themes across cases. Lastly, we applied the case study findings to explore and assess UNAIDS/AVAC GPP guidelines and the GPP Blueprint for Stakeholder Engagement.ResultsAcross settings, we identified three cross-cutting themes as essential to community stakeholder engagement: trial literacy, including lexicon challenges and misconceptions that imperil sound communication; mistrust due to historical exploitation; and participatory processes: engaging early; considering the breadth of "community"; and, developing appropriate stakeholder roles. Site-specific challenges arose in resource-limited settings and settings where trials were halted.ConclusionsThis multiple case study revealed common themes underlying community stakeholder engagement across four country settings that largely mirror GPP goals and the GPP Blueprint, as well as highlighting challenges in the implementation of important guidelines. GPP guidance documents could be strengthened through greater focus on: identifying and addressing the community-specific roots of mistrust and its impact on trial literacy activities; achieving and evaluating representativeness in community stakeholder groups; and addressing the impact of power and funding streams on meaningful engagement and independent decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundPatients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned.DesignA self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation.ParticipantsForty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured.Key resultsMost (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs.ConclusionsPCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundThe CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a pan-Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research, where numerous stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and clinicians are involved at different levels. The Network is committed to continuously improving the level of engagement and partnerships' impact. Measuring patient engagement is therefore important in reflecting on our practices and enhancing our approaches. We aimed to measure patient engagement longitudinally and explore in greater depth the perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators, and overall satisfaction with patient engagement, from the perspectives of the different stakeholders.MethodsPatient engagement was measured using online surveys. In a longitudinal study design over a 3-years period (2018-2020) the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire was used. To enrich our understanding of patient engagement in Year 3, we employed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a cross-sectional, convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Descriptive statistics and a thematic-based approach were used for data analysis.ResultsThe CBPR questionnaire was completed by n = 167 (61.4% response rate), n = 92 (30.2% response rate), and n = 62 (14.2% response rate) Network members in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ninety-five (n = 95, 21.8% response rate) members completed the PPEET in Year 3. CBPR findings demonstrate a stable and high satisfaction level with patient engagement over time, where 94%, 86%, and 94% of stakeholders indicated that the project is a "true partnership" in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Years 2 and 3, we noted an improvement in patient-partners' comfort level in sharing their views and perspectives (92% and 91% vs. 74%). An increase in critical reflective trust (i.e., allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes) from Year 1 to 3 was found, both from the perspectives of patient-partners (51-65%) and researchers (48-75%). Using the PPEET, patient engagement factors (i.e., communications and supports for participation, ability to share views and perspectives) and impact were highly rated by most (80-100%) respondents. PPEET's qualitative responses revealed several patient engagement advantages (e.g., increased projects' relevance, enhanced knowledge translation), barriers (e.g., group homogeneity), facilitators (e.g., optimal communication strategies), and solutions to further improve patient engagement (e.g., provide clarity on goals).ConclusionOur 3-years patient engagement evaluation journey demonstrated a consistent and high level of satisfaction with patient engagement within the Network and identified advantages, barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions. Improvements were observed in members' comfort in sharing their views and perspectives, along with an increase in critical reflective trust. These findings underscore the Network's commitment to enhancing patient engagement and provide valuable insights for continued improvement and optimization of collaborative efforts.

Dataset Information

Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.

Introduction

Discussion

Conclusions

Publications

Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets