BackgroundCommunity engagement in research has gained momentum as an approach to improving research, to helping ensure that community concerns are taken into account, and to informing ethical decision-making when research is conducted in contexts of vulnerability. However, guidelines and scholarship regarding community engagement are arguably unsettled, making it difficult to implement and evaluate.DiscussionWe describe normative guidelines on community engagement that have been offered by national and international bodies in the context of HIV-related research, which set the stage for similar work in other health related research. Next, we review the scholarly literature regarding community engagement, outlining the diverse ethical goals ascribed to it. We then discuss practical guidelines that have been issued regarding community engagement. There is a lack of consensus regarding the ethical goals and approaches for community engagement, and an associated lack of indicators and metrics for evaluating success in achieving stated goals. To address these gaps we outline a framework for developing indicators for evaluating the contribution of community engagement to ethical goals in health research.SummaryThere is a critical need to enhance efforts in evaluating community engagement to ensure that the work on the ground reflects the intentions expressed in the guidelines, and to investigate the contribution of specific community engagement practices for making research responsive to community needs and concerns. Evaluation mechanisms should be built into community engagement practices to guide best practices in community engagement and their replication across diverse health research settings.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

BackgroundDistance learning may be useful for building health research capacity. However, evidence that it can improve knowledge and skills in health research, particularly in resource-poor settings, is limited. We compared the impact and acceptability of teaching two distinct content areas, Biostatistics and Research Ethics, through either on-line distance learning format or traditional on-site training, in a randomized study in India. Our objective was to determine whether on-line courses in Biostatistics and Research Ethics could achieve similar improvements in knowledge, as traditional on-site, classroom-based courses.MethodsSubjects: Volunteer Indian scientists were randomly assigned to one of two arms.Intervention: Students in Arm 1 attended a 3.5-day on-site course in Biostatistics and completed a 3.5-week on-line course in Research Ethics. Students in Arm 2 attended a 3.5-week on-line course in Biostatistics and 3.5-day on-site course in Research Ethics. For the two course formats, learning objectives, course contents and knowledge tests were identical.Main Outcome Measures: Improvement in knowledge immediately and 3-months after course completion, compared to baseline.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar in both arms (n = 29 each). Median knowledge score for Biostatistics increased from a baseline of 49% to 64% (p < 0.001) 3 months after the on-site course, and from 48% to 63% (p = 0.009) after the on-line course. For the on-site Research Ethics course, median score increased from 69% to 83% (p = 0.005), and for the on-line Research Ethics course from 62% to 80% (p < 0.001). Three months after the course, median gains in knowledge scores remained similar for the on-site and on-line platforms for both Biostatistics (16% vs. 12%; p = 0.59) and Research Ethics (17% vs. 13%; p = 0.14).ConclusionOn-line and on-site training formats led to marked and similar improvements of knowledge in Biostatistics and Research Ethics. This, combined with logistical and cost advantages of on-line training, may make on-line courses particularly useful for expanding health research capacity in resource-limited settings.

HighlightsPlacebo controls may be acceptable even when an efficacious vaccine exists, in the following four possible situations:When developing a locally affordable vaccine.When evaluating the local safety and efficacy of an existing vaccine.When testing a new vaccine when an existing vaccine is not considered appropriate locally.When determining the local burden of disease.

Introduction: Task sharing holds promise for scaling up depression care in countries such as India, yet requires training large numbers of non-specialist health workers. This pilot trial evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a digital program for training non-specialist health workers to deliver a brief psychological treatment for depression. Methods: Participants were non-specialist health workers recruited from primary care facilities in Sehore, a rural district in Madhya Pradesh, India. A three-arm randomized controlled trial design was used, comparing digital training alone (DGT) to digital training with remote support (DGT+), and conventional face-to-face training. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of digital training programs. Preliminary effectiveness was explored as changes in competency outcomes, assessed using a self-reported measure covering the specific knowledge and skills required to deliver the brief psychological treatment for depression. Outcomes were collected at pre-training and post-training. Results: Of 42 non-specialist health workers randomized to the training programs, 36 including 10 (72%) in face-to-face, 12 (86%) in DGT, and 14 (100%) in DGT+ arms started the training. Among these participants, 27 (64%) completed the training, with 8 (57%) in face-to-face, 8 (57%) in DGT, and 11 (79%) in DGT+. The addition of remote telephone support appeared to improve completion rates for DGT+ participants. The competency outcome improved across all groups, with no significant between-group differences. However, face-to-face and DGT+ participants showed greater improvement compared to DGT alone. There were numerous technical challenges with the digital training program such as poor connectivity, smartphone app not loading, and difficulty navigating the course content—issues that were further emphasized in follow-up focus group discussions with participants. Feedback and recommendations collected from participants informed further modifications and refinements to the training programs in preparation for a forthcoming large-scale effectiveness trial. Conclusions: This study adds to mounting efforts aimed at leveraging digital technology to increase the availability of evidence-based mental health services in primary care settings in low-resource settings.