Building a Community Partnership for the Development of Health Ministries Within the African American Community: The Triad Pastors Network.

African Americans continue to have worse health outcomes despite attempts to reduce health disparities. This is due, in part, to inadequate access to healthcare, but also to the health care and medical mistrust experienced by communities of color. Churches and worship centers have historically served as cultural centers of trusted resources for educational, financial, and health information within African American communities and a growing number of collaborations have developed between academic institutions and community/faith entities. Herein, we describe the infrastructure of a true and sustainable partnership developed with > 100 prominent faith leaders within the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina for the purpose of developing or expanding existing health ministries within houses of worship, to improve health literacy and overall health long-term. The Triad Pastors Network is an asset-based partnership between the Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and faith leaders in the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina that was created under the guiding principles of community engagement to improve health equity and decrease health disparities experienced by African American communities. A partnership in which co-equality and shared governance are the core of the framework provides an effective means of achieving health-related goals in a productive and efficient manner. Faith-based partnerships are reliable approaches for improving the health literacy needed to address health disparities and inequities in communities of color.

Assessing the Role of Trust in Public Health Agencies and COVID-19 Vaccination Status Among a Community Sample of African Americans in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Mistrust of the government and medical establishments are prominent reasons for vaccine hesitancy among African Americans (AAs). As COVID-19 research evolves in real time with some uncertainties remaining, AA communities may be less trusting of public health agencies. The purpose of these analyses was to assess the association between trust in public health agencies that recommend the COVID-19 vaccination and COVID-19 vaccination status among AAs in North Carolina. METHODS: A 75-item cross-sectional survey, the Triad Pastors Network COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccination survey, was developed and administered to African Americans in North Carolina. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between levels of trust in public health agencies who recommend the COVID-19 vaccine and COVID-19 vaccination status among AAs. RESULTS: Of the 1157 AAs included in these analyses, approximately 14% of AAs had not received the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings indicated that lower levels of trust in public health agencies significantly decreased the odds of getting the COVID-19 vaccination compared to those with higher levels of trust among AAs. The most trusted source for information on COVID-19 included federal agencies among all respondents. Among the vaccinated, primary care physicians were another trusted source of information. Pastors were another trusted source for those willing to be vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority of the respondents in this sample receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, subgroups of AAs remain unvaccinated. Federal agencies have a high level of trust among AA adults; however, innovative approaches are needed to reach AAs who remain unvaccinated.

Crowdsourcing contests to facilitate community engagement in HIV cure research: a qualitative evaluation of facilitators and barriers of participation.

BACKGROUND: As HIV cure research advances, there is an increasing need for community engagement in health research, especially in low- and middle-income countries with ongoing clinical trials. Crowdsourcing contests provide an innovative bottom-up way to solicit community feedback on clinical trials in order to enhance community engagement. The objective of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to participating in crowdsourcing contests about HIV cure research in a city with ongoing HIV cure clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews to evaluate facilitators and barriers to participating in crowdsourcing contests in Guangzhou, China. Contests included the following activities: organizing a call for entries, promoting the call, evaluating entries, celebrating exceptional entries, and sharing entries. We interviewed 31 individuals, including nine HIV cure clinical trial participants, 17 contest participants, and five contest organizers. Our sample included men who have sex with men (20), people living with HIV (14), and people who inject drugs (5). We audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed the data using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: Facilitators of crowdsourcing contest participation included responsiveness to lived experiences, strong community interest in HIV research, and community trust in medical professionals and related groups. Contests had more participants if they responded to the lived experiences, challenges, and opportunities of living with HIV in China. Strong community interest in HIV research helped to drive the formulation and execution of HIV cure contests, building support and momentum for these activities. Finally, participant trust in medical professionals and related groups (community-based organizations and contest organizers) further strengthened the ties between community members and researchers. Barriers to participating in crowdsourcing contests included persistent HIV stigma and myths about HIV. Stigma associated with discussing HIV made promotion difficult in certain contexts (e.g., city squares and schools). Myths and misperceptions about HIV science confused participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our data identified facilitators and barriers of participation in HIV cure crowdsourcing contests in China. Our findings could complement existing HIV community engagement strategies and help to design HIV contests for community engagement in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Community advisory boards (CABs) have expanded beyond high-income countries (HICs) and play an increasing role in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) research. Much research has examined CABs in HICs, but less is known about CABs in LMICs. The purposes of this scoping review are to examine the creation and implementation of CABs in LMICs, including identifying frequently reported challenges, and to discuss implications for research ethics. METHODS: We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for publications describing or evaluating CABs in LMICs. Two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion. Data related to the following aspects of CABs were extracted from included publications: time, country, financial support, research focus, responsibilities, and challenges. Thematic analyses were used to summarize textual data describing challenges. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2005 citations, 83 of which were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies (65) were published between 2010 and 2017. Upper-middle-income countries were more likely to have studies describing CABs, with South Africa (17), China (8), and Thailand (7) having the greatest numbers. The United States National Institutes of Health was the main source of financial support for CABs. Many CABs (53/88, 60%) focused on HIV research. Thirty-four studies reported how CABs influenced the informed consent process for clinical trials or other aspects of research ethics. CAB responsibilities were related to clinical trials, including reviewing study protocols, educating local communities about research activities, and promoting the ethical conduct of research. Challenges faced by CABs included the following: incomplete ethical regulations and guidance; limited knowledge of science among members of communities and CABs; unstable and unbalanced power relationships between researchers and local communities; poor CAB management, including lack of formal participation structures and absence of CAB leadership; competing demands for time that limited participation in CAB activities; and language barriers between research staff and community members. Several challenges reflected shortcomings within the research team. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings examine the formation and implementation of CABs in LMICs and identify several ethical challenges. These findings suggest the need for further ethics training among CAB members and researchers in LMICs.

The Role of Inclusion Benefits in Ethics Committee Assessment of Research Studies.

The relationship between risks and benefits is central to the ethics of research involving human participants. Traditionally, to be ethically justifiable, risks should be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects and to the potential social benefits resulting from research. This calculus is being further complicated by findings from an increasing number of social science studies that reveal that prospective and actual research participants frequently describe various types of inclusion benefits (for example, personal benefits such as access to or improved health care, increased knowledge about their disease or condition, and greater solidarity with the local community) as important to them. What is the ethical significance of such inclusion benefits, particularly those nonmedical in nature, for research ethics committees' risk-benefit assessment of research studies? We argue that, unless participants are clearly mistaken in their perceptions, ethics committees should take these types of inclusion benefits into account, and we suggest a few ways this might look in practice.