Doreen Tembo and colleagues argue that small changes as well as larger system-wide changes can strengthen citizens’ contribution to knowledge in health research

In Kenyan communities, religious leaders are important gatekeepers in matters of health and public morality. In a context that is generally homophobic, religious leaders may aggravate or reduce stigmatization of sexual minorities such as gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Literature indicates mixed results in efforts to encourage religious leaders to work effectively and sensitively with issues regarding HIV and sexuality. This paper describes the implementation of an engagement intervention with religious leaders from different denominations, which took place following a homophobic hate attack that was led by local religious leaders, at an HIV research clinic for GBMSM on the Kenyan coast. After the homophobic attack, tailored engagement activities, including a comprehensive four-day online sensitivity training course took place between June 2015 and October 2016 in the Kenyan coast. HIV researchers, together with trained GBMSM activists, organized the series of engagement activities for religious leaders which unfolded iteratively, with each subsequent activity informed by the results of the previous one. Facilitated conversations were used to explore differences and disagreements in relation to questions of scripture, mission, HIV, and human sexuality. As a result, researchers noted that many religious leaders, who initially expressed exceedingly negative attitudes towards GBMSM, started to express far more accepting and supportive views of sexuality, sexual identities, and same-sex relations. This paper describes the changes in religious leaders’ discourses relating to GBMSM, and highlights the possibility of using engagement interventions to build trust between research institutes, religious leaders, and GBMSM.

BackgroundCommunity engagement, incorporating elements of the broader concepts of public and stakeholder engagement, is increasingly promoted globally, including for health research conducted in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, community engagement needs and challenges are arguably intensified for studies involving gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, where male same-sex sexual interactions are often highly stigmatised and even illegal. This paper contextualises, describes and interprets the discussions and outcomes of an international meeting held at the Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust in Kilifi, Kenya, in November 2013, to critically examine the experiences with community engagement for studies involving men who have sex with men.DiscussionWe discuss the ethically charged nature of the language used for men who have sex with men, and of working with ‘representatives’ of these communities, as well as the complementarity and tensions between a broadly public health approach to community engagement, and a more rights based approach. We highlight the importance of researchers carefully considering which communities to engage with, and the goals, activities, and indicators of success and potential challenges for each. We suggest that, given the unintended harms that can emerge from community engagement (including through labelling, breaches in confidentiality, increased visibility and stigma, and threats to safety), representatives of same-sex populations should be consulted from the earliest possible stage, and that engagement activities should be continuously revised in response to unfolding realities. Engagement should also include less vocal and visible men who have sex with men, and members of other communities with influence on the research, and on research participants and their families and friends. Broader ethics support, advice and research into studies involving men who have sex with men is needed to ensure that ethical challenges – including but not limited to those related to community engagement – are identified and addressed.SummaryUnderlying challenges and dilemmas linked to stigma and discrimination of men who have sex with men in Africa raise special responsibilities for researchers. Community engagement is an important way of identifying responses to these challenges and responsibilities but itself presents important ethical challenges.

Background: Snakebites affect over 5 million people each year, and over 100,000 per year die as a result. The only available treatment is antivenom, which has many shortcomings including high cost, intravenous administration, and high risk of adverse events. One of the most abundant and harmful components of viper venoms are the zinc-dependent snake venom metalloproteinases (SVMPs). Unithiol is a chelating agent which is routinely used to treat heavy metal poisoning. In vivo experiments in small animal models have demonstrated that unithiol can prevent local tissue damage and death caused by a certain viper species. This phase I clinical trial will assess the safety of ascending doses of unithiol with a view for repurposing for snakebite indication. Methods: This open label, single agent, phase I clinical trial of a repurposed drug has a primary objective to evaluate the safety of escalating doses of unithiol, and a secondary objective to describe its pharmacokinetics. In total, 64 healthy Kenyan volunteers from Kilifi County will be dosed in consecutive groups of eight, with dose escalation decisions dependent on review of safety data by an independent data safety monitoring board. Four groups will receive ascending single oral doses, two will receive multiple oral doses, and two will receive single intravenous doses. Follow-up will be for 6-months and includes full adverse event reporting. Pharmacokinetic analysis will define the Cmax, Tmax, half-life and renal elimination. Conclusions: This clinical trial will assess the safety and tolerability of a promising oral therapeutic in a relevant setting where snakebites are prevalent. Unithiol is likely to be safer than antivenom, is easier to manufacture, has activity against diverse snake species, and can be administered orally, and thus shows promise for repurposing for tropical snakebite. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR202103718625048 (3/3/2021)

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does “good” CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what “good” CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what “good” CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community.