Developing the science and methods of community engagement for genomic research and biobanking in Africa

Historically, community engagement (CE) in research has been implemented in the fields of public health, education and agricultural development. In recent years, international discussions on the ethical and practical goals of CE have been extended to human genomic research and biobanking, particularly in the African context. While there is some consensus on the goals and value of CE generally, questions remain about the effectiveness of CE practices and how to evaluate this. Under the auspices of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), the H3Africa CE working group organized a workshop in Stellenbosch, South Africa in March 2016 to explore the extent to which communities should be involved in genomic research and biobanking and to examine various methods of evaluating the effectiveness of CE. In this paper, we present the key themes that emerged from the workshop and make a case for the development of a rigorous application, evaluation and learning around approaches for CE that promote a more systematic process of engaging relevant communities. We highlight the key ways in which CE should be embedded into genomic research and biobanking projects.

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.