Skip to main content

Table 4 Example of guidance provided in Worksheets

From: Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

Worksheet 4A, Question 5

Will community members be involved as collaborators (decision-makers) and/or consultants? Is this acceptable to them?

Suggested next steps:

- If your answer to Question 5 is that community members will be involved as collaborators, consider whether and how research priorities can be set through a deliberative process with community members that yields a collective decision. Deliberative processes are governed by norms of equality, symmetry, and non-coercion and generate consensus. All participants can voice their ideas for research priorities and explain why they favour them. Other participants can then ask them questions of clarification or contestation to which they can respond. All participants debate the pros and cons of various proposals. The final set of priorities is mutually agreed upon by all participants. Next, brainstorm Actions to Take to run the deliberative workshop(s) below. Deliberative community engagement processes have been used to inform institutional ethics policies on biobanking and benefit sharing. Methods applied in these studies may be a rich resource to draw upon to inform health research priority-setting practice . Also, brainstorm a Strategy to assess whether this level of participation is acceptable to community participants (once specific individuals are invited to participate). Then proceed to Question 6.

- If your answer to Question 5 is that community members will be involved as consultants, brainstorm how they will be consulted and how a ratification process involving community members, including those considered disadvantaged or marginalised, can be implemented for the final set of research priorities. Also, consider whether a diverse subset of community partner staff or community members can be selected and trained (as field investigators) to collect and analyse data from community members, and develop strategies for training them. Brainstorm Actions to Take to implement the consultation, ratification, and training processes below. Also, brainstorm a Strategy to assess whether this level of participation is acceptable to community participants. Then proceed to Question 6.

  1. aSee: O’Doherty, K.C., Hawkins, A.K., & Burgess, M.M. (2012). Involving Citizens in the Ethics of Biobank Research: Informing Institutional Policy through Structured Public Deliberation. Social Science & Medicine. 75, 1604–1611; Marsh, V. et al. (2013). Consulting Communities on Feedback of Genetic Findings in International Health Research: Sharing Sickle Cell Disease and Carrier Information in Coastal Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics. 14, 41; Njue, M., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2014) What Are Fair Study Benefits in International. Health Research? Consulting Community Members in Kenya. PLoS ONE. 9(12), e113112. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113112