4.5 Article

Application of the Relationship-Based Model to Engagement for Field Trials of Genetically Engineered Malaria Vectors

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0868

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of California, Irvine Malaria Initiative
  2. Open Philanthropy Project Fund [A203521001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transition of new technologies in public health faces increasing engagement challenges, and the relationship-based model (RBM) is a key framework that allows stakeholders to be more involved in decision-making processes, rather than just accepting predefined strategies.
The transition of new technologies for public health from laboratory to field is accompanied by a broadening scope of engagement challenges. Recent developments of vector control strategies involving genetically engineered mosquitoes with gene drives to assist in the eradication of malaria have drawn significant attention. Notably, questions have arisen surrounding community and regulatory engagement activities and of the need for examples of models or frameworks that can be applied to guide engagement. A relationship-based model (RBM) provides a framework that places stakeholders and community members at the center of decision-making processes, rather than as recipients of predetermined strategies, methods, and definitions. Successful RBM application in the transformation of healthcare delivery has demonstrated the importance of open dialogue and relationship development in establishing an environment where individuals are actively engaged in decision-making processes regarding their health. Although guidelines and recommendations for engagement for gene drives have recently been described, we argue here that communities and stakeholders should lead the planning, development, and implementation phases of engagement. The RBM provides a new approach to the development of ethical, transparent, and effective engagement strategies for malaria control programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据