Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of responses between the teams

From: Engaging with Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Lusaka Zambia: perspectives from the research team and CAB members

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