BackgroundCommunity engagement in research is valuable for instrumental and intrinsic reasons. Despite existing guidance on how to ensure meaningful CE, much of what it takes to achieve this goal differs across settings. Considering the emerging trend towards mandating CE in many research studies, this study aimed at documenting how CE is conceptualized and implemented, and then providing context-specific guidance on how researchers and research regulators in Uganda could think about and manage CE in research.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews and focus group (...) discussions involving forty-one respondents who were experienced in HIV/aids biomedical research involving CE. Thirty-eight of these were directly or indirectly associated with Uganda’s leading research institution in the field of HIV/aids. They included Principal Investigators, Community Liaisons Officers, Research Ethics Committee members and Community Advisory Board Members. Three respondents were from Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Data were collected between August 2019 and August 2020, using audio-taped focus group discussions and key informant interviews, transcribed and analyzed manually to generate themes and subthemes.ResultsThree major themes emerged: goals or value of CE; the means of CE, and, the evaluation of CE. Goals or value of CE generated four subthemes representing the overarching goals of CE: Promote communities’ agency; Generate and sustain trust; Protect and promote communities’ rights and interests; and, Help studies optimize participation in the form of enrolment and retention of participants. What usually comes under the nomenclatures of methods, strategies, and approaches of CE, such as town-hall meetings, sports events, drama, and the like, should simply be understood as the means of CE, and it is not desirable to hold pre-conceived and fixed ideas about the best means to conduct CE in research since a lot depend on the context. Finally, the study found that despite CE’s critical importance, which suggests the need to track and evaluate it, CE is currently intermittently evaluated, and for inadequate motivations.ConclusionsExisting guidance on how to conduct robust CE in research is no substitute for creativity, flexibility, and reflexivity on the part of both researchers and research regulators. (shrink)

Engaging young people in health research has been promoted globally. We explored the outcomes of youth advisory group on health and research engagement (YAGHRE) in rural Cambodia. In May 2021, the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) partnered with a local health centre and a secondary school to establish a youth engagement group. Ten students underwent training and led health engagement activities in schools and communities. Activities were documented as field notes and audio-visual materials which underwent content analysis using (...) theory of change supplemented by iterative discussions with YAGHRE members and stakeholders. Five major outcomes were identified: 1. Increased respect. Engagement activities developed based on input from students and stakeholders may have fostered greater respect. 2. Built trust and relationships. Frequent visits to MORU’s laboratory and interactions with researchers appeared to contribute to the building of trust and relationship. 3. Improved health and research literacy. Learning new health and research topics, through participatory activities may have improved literacy; 4. Improved uptake of health and research interventions. Health promotional activities and communication with research participants potentially increased the uptake of interventions; 5. Improved community health. YAGHRE’s health promotional interventions may have contributed in enhancing community’s health. (shrink)