How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community

Abstract

Background There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose? Methods We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed. Results Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve—either empowerment or instrumental goals—and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported. Conclusions This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case.

A Rubric to Center Equity in Obstetrics and Gynecology Research

“…29,30 For this reason, participation by members of the communities being studied should be considered throughout the entire research process: conception of the study idea, study design, interpretation, and publication of the results. [31][32][33] Well-done community-engaged research requires thoughtful consideration, trust, and relationship building and can be community initiated, synergistic, or consultative. 34,35 If the study relied on community engagement, authors should specify the roles and involvement of study participants or community members who participated in the research process.…”

“I’ve never been asked”: Community perspectives on involvement in genomics research

“…Biomedical researchers from the UK, Africa, and Australia indicate strong support for community engagement in research, citing ethical imperatives such as empowerment and instrumental and transformative goal setting (Borthwick, Evertsz, and Pratt, 2023) 14 . They suggest that community-initiated and synergistic models of research that re ect the tenets of 'citizen science' and forefront the principles of collaboration and co-design are well placed to prioritise the community voice.…”

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia

“…HPSR looks for how different organizations and actors collaborate for the achievement of collective goals in the implementation of policy [ 8 – 11 ]. It has the prospective to reimburse for or resolve existing differences in power, privilege, and positionality and allow for sidelined voices and experiences to be represented in the production of scientific knowledge [ 12 ].…”