4.2 Article

'IT LOOKS LIKE YOU JUST WANT THEM WHEN THINGS GET ROUGH': CIVIL SOCIETY PERSPECTIVES ON NEGATIVE TRIAL RESULTS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN HIV PREVENTION TRIALS

期刊

DEVELOPING WORLD BIOETHICS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 138-148

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00338.x

关键词

HIV; AIDS; clinical trials; developing world bioethics; NGO; South Africa; community network

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Team Grant/Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI)
  3. Canada Research Chairs program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Civil society organizations (CSOs) have significantly impacted on the politics of health research and the field of bioethics. In the global HIV epidemic, CSOs have served a pivotal stakeholder role. The dire need for development of new prevention technologies has raised critical challenges for the ethical engagement of community stakeholders in HIV research. This study explored the perspectives of CSO representatives involved in HIV prevention trials (HPTs) on the impact of premature trial closures on stakeholder engagement. Fourteen respondents from South African and international CSOs representing activist and advocacy groups, community mobilisation initiatives, and human and legal rights groups were purposively sampled based on involvement in HPTs. Interviews were conducted from February-May 2010. Descriptive analysis was undertaken across interviews and key themes were developed inductively. CSO representatives largely described positive outcomes of recent microbicide and HIV vaccine trial terminations, particularly in South Africa, which they attributed to improvements in stakeholder engagement. Ongoing challenges to community engagement included the need for principled justifications for selective stakeholder engagement at strategic time-points, as well as the need for legitimate alternatives to CABs as mechanisms for engagement. Key issues for CSOs in relation to research were also raised.

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

4.2
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