|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
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
References
- Lo B., Bayer R. Establishing ethical trials for treatment and prevention of AIDS in developing countries . BMJ 2003; 327(7410): 337-9.[Free Full Text]
- Melton GB, Levine RJ, Koocher GP, et al. Community consultation in socially sensitive research. Lessons from clinical trials of treatments for AIDS . Am Psychol 1988; 43(7): 573-81.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Page-Shafer K., Saphonn V., Sun LP, et al. HIV prevention research in a resource-limited setting: the experience of planning a trial in Cambodia . Lancet 2005; 366(9495): 1499-503.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Featherstone K., Donovan JL Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients' perspectives of participation in a randomised controlled trial . BMJ 1998; 317(7167): 1177-80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Joffe S., Cook EF, Cleary PD, et al. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects . J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93(2): 139-47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kerr C., Robinson E., Stevens A., et al. Randomisation in trials: do potential trial participants understand it and find it acceptable ? J Med Ethics 2004; 30(1): 80-4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- McGrath JW, George K., Svilar G., et al. Knowledge about vaccine trials and willingness to participate in an HIV/ AIDS vaccine study in the Ugandan military . J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2001; 27(4): 381-8.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Pucci E., Belardinelli N., Signorino M., Angeleri F. Patients' understanding of randomised controlled trials depends on their education . BMJ 1999; 318(7187): 875 .[Free Full Text]
- Stead M., Eadie D., Gordon D., Angus K. ' Hello, hello-it's English I speak!': a qualitative exploration of patients' understanding of the science of clinical trials . J Med Ethics 2005; 31(11): 664-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH, et al. Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate . J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(15): 3554-61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Moulton LH, Golub JE, Durovni B., et al. Statistical design of THRio: a phased implementation clinic-randomized study of a tuberculosis preventive therapy intervention . Clin Trials 2007; 4(2): 190-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. CIOMS Guidelines. Geneva , 2002.
- Voluntary HIV-1 Counseling and Testing Efficacy Study Group. Efficacy of voluntary HIV-1 counselling and testing in individuals and couples in Kenya, Tanzania, and Trinidad: a randomised trial . Lancet 2000; 356(9224): 103-12.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Morin SF, Maiorana A., Koester KA, et al. Community consultation in HIV prevention research: a study of community advisory boards at 6 research sites . J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003; 33(4): 513-20.[ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
