Search

Objective To assess the potential for crowdsourcing to complement and extend community advisory board (CAB) feedback on HIV clinical trials. Crowdsourcing involves community members attempting to solve a problem and then sharing solutions. Methods CAB and crowdsourced approaches were implemented in the context of a phase 1 HIV antibody trial to collect feedback on informed consent, participation experiences, and fairness. CAB engagement was conducted through group discussions with members of an HIV CAB. Crowdsourcing involved open events intended to engage the local community, including interactive video modules, animated vignettes, and a creative idea contest. Open coding and analysis of emergent themes were conducted to compare CAB and crowdsourced feedback. Results The crowdsourcing activities engaged 61 people across three events; nine people engaged in CAB feedback. Compared with CAB participants, crowdsourcing participants had lower levels of education and income, and higher levels of disability and unemployment. Overlap in CAB and crowdsourced feedback included recommendations for enhancing communication and additional support for trial participants. Crowdsourcing provided more detailed feedback on the impact of positive experiences and socio-economic factors on trial participation. CAB feedback included greater emphasis on institutional regulations and tailoring trial procedures. Crowdsourced feedback emphasized alternative methods for learning about trials and concerns with potential risks of trial participation. Conclusion Conducting crowdsourcing in addition to CAB engagement can yield a broader range of stakeholder feedback to inform the design and conduct of HIV clinical trials. VIDEO ABSTRACT:.

Background/AimsCommunity engagement is widely acknowledged as an important step in clinical trials. One underexplored method for engagement in clinical trials is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing involves having community members attempt to solve a problem and then publicly sharing innovative solutions. We designed and conducted a pilot using a crowdsourcing approach to obtain community feedback on an HIV clinical trial, called the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study. In this work, we describe and assess the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study’s crowdsourcing activities in order to examine the opportunities of crowdsourcing as a clinical trial community engagement strategy.MethodsThe crowdsourcing engagement activities involved in the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study were conducted in the context of a phase 1 HIV antibody trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803605). We designed a series of crowdsourcing activities to collect feedback on three aspects of this clinical trial: the informed consent process, the experience of participating in the trial, and fairness/reciprocity in HIV clinical trials. All crowdsourcing activities were open to members of the general public 18 years of age or older, and participation was solicited from the local community. A group discussion was held with representatives of the clinical trial team to obtain feedback on the utility of crowdsourcing as a community engagement strategy for informing future clinical trials.ResultsCrowdsourcing activities made use of innovative tools and a combination of in-person and online participation opportunities to engage community members in the clinical trial feedback process. Community feedback on informed consent was collected by transforming the clinical trial’s informed consent form into a series of interactive video modules, which were screened at an open public discussion. Feedback on the experience of trial participation involved designing three fictional vignettes which were then transformed into animated videos and screened at an open public discussion. Finally, feedback on fairness/reciprocity in HIV clinical trials was collected using a crowdsourcing idea contest with online and in-person submission opportunities. Our public discussion events were attended by 38 participants in total; our idea contest received 43 submissions (27 in-person, 16 online). Facebook and Twitter metrics demonstrated substantial engagement in the project. The clinical team found crowdsourcing primarily useful for enhancing informed consent and trial recruitment.ConclusionThere is sufficient lay community interest in open calls for feedback on the design and conduct of clinical trials, making crowdsourcing both a novel and feasible engagement strategy. Clinical trial researchers are encouraged to consider the opportunities of implementing crowdsourcing to inform trial processes from a community perspective.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a crowdsourcing contest to promote HIV cure research community engagement. Methods Crowdsourcing contests are open calls for community participation to achieve a task, in this case to engage local communities about HIV cure research. Our contest solicited images and videos of what HIV cure meant to people. Contestants submitted entries to IdeaScale, an encrypted online contest platform. We used a mixed-methods study design to evaluate the contest. Engagement was assessed through attendance at promotional events and social media user analytics. Google Analytics measured contest website user-engagement statistics. Text from contest video entries was transcribed, coded and analysed using MAXQDA. Results There were 144 attendees at three promotional events and 32 entries from 39 contestants. Most individuals who submitted entries were black (n=31), had some college education (n=18) and were aged 18–23 years (n=23). Social media analytics showed 684 unique page followers, 2233 unique page visits, 585 unique video views and an overall reach of 80,624 unique users. Contest submissions covered themes related to the community's role in shaping the future of HIV cure through education, social justice, creativity and stigma reduction. Conclusion Crowdsourcing contests are feasible for engaging community members in HIV cure research. Community contributions to crowdsourcing contests provide useful content for culturally relevant and locally responsive research engagement.

Introduction Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines. Methods We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow‐up, results and dissemination. Results and discussion Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty‐eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high‐income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle‐income countries and nine (8.3%) in low‐income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty‐five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV‐affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at‐risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post‐trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%). Conclusions Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.