Clinical Trials

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chingono, A.
Right arrow Articles by Morin, S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chingono, A.
Right arrow Articles by Morin, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Trials, Vol. 5, No. 3, 273-276 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508091576

Balancing science and community concerns in resource-limited settings: Project Accept in rural Zimbabwe

Alfred Chingono

Department of Psychiatry, University of Zimbabwe, School of Medicine, Harare, Zimbabwe

Tim Lane

Center for Aids Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, USA, tim.lane{at}ucsf.edu

Alexander Chitumba

Department of Psychiatry, University of Zimbabwe, School of Medicine, Harare, Zimbabwe

Michal Kulich

Faculty of Methematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Stephen Morin

Center for Aids Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, USA

Background: The methods and purposes of randomization are often poorly understood by participants in clinical trials. Individual misunderstandings can be compounded in community-based intervention trials, especially in research-naïve communities. Randomizing entire communities to intervention or control status risks creating the perception that control communities are being denied desirable services, ultimately undermining trust in the research process.

Purpose: To develop a randomization scheme for an HIV prevention trial of a community-level intervention that would be credible to the communities involved while maintaining the scientific integrity of the intervention trial at a rural site in Zimbabwe.

Methods: Project staff developed strong partnerships with community stakeholders and embedded randomization into the trial's community preparedness processes. Local idioms were used to explain the concept, purpose, and mechanics of randomization. Actual allocation of communities to intervention or control status took place at a public lottery conducted by local chiefs.

Results: The Project obtained the endorsement of its randomization of eight rural communities by local political stakeholders and community members.

Limitations: This case study may not generalize to other settings.

Conclusions: By developing strong community partnerships, and communicating randomization through local idioms, community based intervention trials conducted in resource-poor environments can successfully mitigate risks inherent in randomizing communities to control status. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 273—276. http://ctj.sagepub.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?