Evaluation of the Bangkok Health Research and Ethics Interest Group: reflecting on the experiences of group members, researchers and facilitators participating in an urban community advisory board in Thailand
Osterrieder, A.; Ruangkajorn, S.; Naemiratch, B.; Poomchaichote, T.; Asarath, S.-a.; Boonthaworn, K.; Cheah, P. Y.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), headquartered in Bangkok, conducts research on tropical medicine and global health. MORU works closely with a network of community advisory boards (CABs), with members drawn from communities served by its research sites. In 2019, we set up the Bangkok Health Research and Ethics Interest Group (HREIG). HREIG is an urban CAB composed of Bangkok residents from all walks of life who have an interest in health research, but do not have a professional health research background. HREIG advises on clinical research and broader societal issues, complementing MORUs rural CABs in areas such as the Thai-Myanmar border and Cambodia. In 2022, the group had 14 members aged 22 to 51. Initially, meetings were held in person and in English, to support discussion with international researchers. During COVID-19 restrictions, meetings moved online and adopted Thai as the main language. Main bodyTo evaluate the groups first two years, we conducted a mixed-methods study using focus group discussions and anonymous online surveys with group members, researchers and facilitators. We found that members joined to contribute to research and society, and for personal benefits such as learning about health research or meeting new people. While some valued practicing English, it made harder for members to contribute equally, and even those with good conversational English struggled with technical terms. Researchers reported that engaging with the group helped improve their communication skills, and that they valued hearing lay perspectives. Facilitators strengthened their skills in areas such as facilitation, online collaboration, and explaining research in lay terms. As HREIG is not tied to a specific study, its contributions have ranged from improving malaria messaging for the Thai public to testing COVID-19 surveys, or sharing opinions on vaccines and clinical trial participation. ConclusionOur findings offer an in-depth insight into the experiences of HREIG members, researchers and facilitators. We share the outcomes of the groups activities, and the lessons learnt from running a CAB in an international research environment. We hope that our findings will help others who would like to set up a CAB in a similar context. Plain English summaryThe Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), headquartered in Bangkok, carries out research on tropical medicine and global health. MORU works closely with a network of community advisory boards (CABs). In 2019, we set up the Bangkok Health Research and Ethics Interest Group (HREIG). Its members are Bangkok residents from all walks of life who have an interest in health research, but do not have a professional health research background. HREIG advises on clinical research and broader societal issues, such as data sharing or artificial intelligence. By 2022, the group had 14 members aged 22 to 51. Initially, meetings were held in English and in person; during COVID-19 restrictions, they shifted online and adopted Thai as the main language. After two years, we asked members, researchers and facilitators for their feedback on the group. HREIG members had joined the group to contribute to research and society, and for personal benefits, such as learning about health research or meeting new people. Although some members enjoyed practicing English, it made harder for members to contribute equally. Researchers had improved their communication skills, and valued hearing from non-scientists. Facilitators had expanded their professional skills as well. The groups feedback was important for many studies, including improving communications about malaria for the Thai public, testing COVID-19 survey questions or sharing views about vaccines. Our findings offer an in-depth insight into the experiences of HREIG members, researchers and facilitators. We hope that our findings will help others who would like to set up a CAB in a similar setting. Thaiclinicaltrials.org registration: TCTR20211012003
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Participatory research in health intervention studies involving migrants: a systematic review 95%
- How can rural community-engaged health services planning affect sustainable health care system changes? - A process description and qualitative analysis of data from the Rural Coordination Centre of British Columbia’s Rural Site Visits Project 95%
- Perceptions on undertaking regular asymptomatic self-testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow tests: A qualitative study of university students and staff 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions on the lived experiences of people living in Thailand, Malaysia, Italy and the United Kingdom: a cross-country qualitative study 96%
- Facilitated transition in HIV drug trial closure: a conceptual model for HIV post-trial care 95%
- The Pandemic Journaling Project: A new dataset of first-person accounts of the COVID-19 pandemic 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 96%
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 95%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct: Views of stakeholders from a qualitative study in Ghana 96%
- Navigating vaccination choices: The intersecting dynamics of institutional trust, belonging and message perception among Congolese migrants in the UK (A reflexive thematic analysis) 95%
- Who participates in ‘participatory design’ of WASH infrastructure: a mixed-methods process evaluation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- How best do we engage the general population in testing for COVID-19? 94%
- Acceptability and feasibility of strategies to shield the vulnerable during the COVID-19 outbreak: a qualitative study in six Sudanese communities 93%
- Rising Through the Pandemic: A scoping review of quality improvement in public health during the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.