Integrating tuberculosis research with public health infrastructure: Lessons on community engagement from Orizaba, Mexico

Abstract

Background: The Orizaba Health Region, in Veracruz, Mexico, has hosted the research programme of the Consorcio Mexicano contra la Tuberculosis since 1995. Methods: The objective of this retrospective case study conducted in 2009 was to describe and explain the evolution and outcomes of the stakeholder and community engagement activities of the Consorcio. Recorded interviews and focus groups were coded to identify major themes related to the success of stakeholder and community engagement activities. Results: The Consorcio successfully managed to embed its research program into the local public health infrastructure. This integration was possible because the core research team tailored its engagement strategy to the local context, while focusing on a large spectrum of stakeholders with various positions of authority and responsibility. The overall engagement strategy can be described as a three-pronged endeavor: building a “coalition” with local authorities, nurturing “camaraderie” with community health workers, and striving to be “present” in the lives of community members and participants. Conclusions: The Consorcio’s efforts teach valuable lessons on how to approach stakeholder and community engagement in tuberculosis (TB) research, particularly in developing countries. Furthermore, the health outcomes reveal stakeholder and community engagement as a potentially under-tapped tool to promote disease control.

‘Working relationships’ across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

“…Such support for engagement staff appears to be most developed where there is a commitment to engagement at an institutional level over time ( Kamuya et al ., 2013 ; Kombe et al ., 2019 ; Lairumbi et al ., 2012 ; Njue et al ., 2014 ). Commitment to engagement, in turn, relies on the facilitative leadership on the part of senior researchers and research institution directors, ensuring engagement is a priority and resourced adequately ( Aggett, 2018 ; Boulanger et al ., 2020 ; De Weger et al ., 2018 ; Evans et al ., 2014 ; Kolopack et al ., 2015 ). The importance of such leadership was most clearly documented in reviews of engagement in settings in the global North that we drew on in developing our initial programme theory, but this is complemented by some LMIC data and direct knowledge from various members of the team in LMICs.…”