Table 5 Comparison of responses between the teams
Team | Participant | Worked Well | Did not work well | Added value of CAB | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team 1 | Research Team | Involvement of stakeholders in community at early stage | Use of drama to sensitize community as mainly children attending | Involvement in protocol development leads to culturally acceptable questions, clarify rumours | Involve CAB in development of research question/idea instead of after approval of protocol |
CAB member | Involvement of community, transport reimbursement, travel | lack of internet access at clinic | lack of insurance for CAB members | ||
Team 2 | Research Team | Close link with clinic helped their role in dispelling rumours, | Feedback from community to research team not sufficient. | Give advice in how to disseminate information and results, Improve retention | Improve feedback from community to research team, better represent community |
CAB member | Close link with clinic and good relationship with study team, dispel rumours, myths, misconception | Need greater spirit of volunteerism and not dependent on incentives | More training on research, | ||
Team 3 | Research Team | Providing information to community to deal with rumours. Use of community drama groups | Lack of space for CAB meetings. Reliance on voluntarianism | Useful in tracking participants | |
CAB member | Support from staff, training, selection of members through adverts. Diverse group of participants | Use of professionals in CAB led to lack of commitment, involvement of Staff members in CAB | Provide insurance for CAB members. Involve participants in the study as CAB members. | ||
Team 4 | Research Team | Sensitization of community. Selection of CAB members through open method using adverts | Dependence on voluntarianism reduced commitment of CAB members | Helps to enter community, dispel rumours | Use research participants as part of CAB, involve them in sensitization of community |
CAB member | Involvement of CAB members from same community. Transport reimbursements. Dispelling rumours | Transport reimbursements inadequate | Involve CAB from conception of study and not only after protocol approved. Involve previous study participants | ||
Team 5 | Research Team | Dialogue with community through existing structures | Use of existing structures as CAB members as no control over quality of members | Role in improving retention in study, advocacy for participants (room, food | Improve role as representatives of the community. Ensure broad representation of community |
CAB member | Enhanced communication bet study team and community, helped to dispel rumours and reduce stigma | Feedback from research team inadequate, did not always fulfil promises | Need for capacity building of CAB members, should be involved in dissemination of results | ||
Team 6 | Research Team | Using existing structures as CAB members | Self-selection by existing structures as some members not literate and had difficulty understanding concepts of study | Improved recruitment and retention in study, sensitization of community | Use of existing structures as CAB members instead of a new structure to reduce conflicts |
CAB member | Involving existing structures to enter the community | Lack of a designated focal person Centre. Inadequate support to CAB | Ensure adequate support from Research Team |