Regulation of community advisory boards during conduct of clinical trials in Uganda: a qualitative study involving stakeholders

Abstract

Abstract Background Community advisory structures such as Community Advisory Boards (CABs) play an important role of helping researchers to better understand the community at each phase of the clinical trial. CABs can be a source of accurate information on the community, its perception of proposed research and may identify factors that make community members vulnerable to the problem under investigation. Although CABs help to build mutually beneficial relationships between the researcher(s) and the communities in which the clinical trial is being implemented, effective engagement would require ethical guidance and regulatory oversight. The study assessed the stakeholders’ perspectives regarding the regulatory oversight of CABs in Uganda. Methods This was an exploratory study employing qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with the trial investigators, CAB chairpersons, community liaison officers, regulators and Research Ethics Committee (REC) chairpersons were conducted. A KII guide was designed and utilized during key informant interviews. The guide included questions on role of investigators and CAB members in clinical trials; challenges of community engagement; facilitation of CABs; regulatory oversight of CABs; work relationships between investigators and CABs; and opinions on how community trials should be conducted among others. All interviews were conducted in English. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim. A code book was generated based on the transcripts and study objectives. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data and identify themes. Atlas ti was used to support data analysis. Results Of the 34 respondents, 35.3% were investigators, 32.3% CAB chairpersons, 23.5% research regulators/REC Chairs and 8.8% community liaison officers. The findings of the study revealed that CABs are appointed by the research institution/researcher, operate under the guidance of the researcher with limited independence. Additionally, the CABs provide voluntary service and lack guidelines or regulatory oversight. Four themes emerged. Conclusion The operations and activities of CABs are not regulated by the national regulators or RECs. The regulatory oversight of CABs should be based on contextualized ethical guidelines. Need for additional training in research ethics, community engagement and sensitization on available ethics guidelines for research.