CHWs can be utilised in engagement activities, however they may over-emphasize trial benefits when sharing trial information and may face animosity from community members during information sharing (Angwenyi et al., 2013).
Both Field Workers and CHWs may be utilised in clinical trials. This combination may be beneficial and challenging. Learning from the experiences in a malaria vaccine trial in Kenya, fieldworkers were frontline staff employed by research team from communities in which participants lived, while CHWs were unpaid, untrained volunteers who were compensated (Angwenyi et al., 2013). Over time the roles of CHWs coincided with the roles of fieldworkers. Trial staff and community members consider CHWs to be more convenient and readily available for consultations on research related matters compared to fieldworkers because CHWs were well known due to their roles within communities (Angwenyi et al., 2013). With a performance-based remuneration, CHWs were encouraged by researchers to use their social status and network to boost attendance in information giving sessions (Angwenyi et al., 2013). CHWs therefore misrepresented trial information to boost participation among community members and some participants even felt pressured to participate (Angwenyi et al., 2013). Therefore it is essential that roles …show more content…
In the papers reviewed effective community engagement activities/strategies were described and assessed mainly by recruitment rates (Falcon et al., 2011, Lang et al., 2012, Medeossi et al., 2014, Sahay et al., 2014), and from observing strategies, conducting focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, however this does not necessarily mean participants are retained (Falcon et al., 2011). Using recruitment rates as an outcome measure is challenging and therefore should not be used (Lang et al.,
Both Field Workers and CHWs may be utilised in clinical trials. This combination may be beneficial and challenging. Learning from the experiences in a malaria vaccine trial in Kenya, fieldworkers were frontline staff employed by research team from communities in which participants lived, while CHWs were unpaid, untrained volunteers who were compensated (Angwenyi et al., 2013). Over time the roles of CHWs coincided with the roles of fieldworkers. Trial staff and community members consider CHWs to be more convenient and readily available for consultations on research related matters compared to fieldworkers because CHWs were well known due to their roles within communities (Angwenyi et al., 2013). With a performance-based remuneration, CHWs were encouraged by researchers to use their social status and network to boost attendance in information giving sessions (Angwenyi et al., 2013). CHWs therefore misrepresented trial information to boost participation among community members and some participants even felt pressured to participate (Angwenyi et al., 2013). Therefore it is essential that roles …show more content…
In the papers reviewed effective community engagement activities/strategies were described and assessed mainly by recruitment rates (Falcon et al., 2011, Lang et al., 2012, Medeossi et al., 2014, Sahay et al., 2014), and from observing strategies, conducting focus group discussions and in-depth interviews, however this does not necessarily mean participants are retained (Falcon et al., 2011). Using recruitment rates as an outcome measure is challenging and therefore should not be used (Lang et al.,