Community-led trials: Intervention co-design in a cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract In conventional randomised controlled trials (RCTs), researchers design the interventions. In the Camino Verde trial, each intervention community designed its own programmes to prevent dengue. Instead of fixed actions or menus of activities to choose from, the trial randomised clusters to a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Neil Andersson (Author)
Format: Book
Published: BMC, 2017-05-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_81e12b2ee24d46cd9e66c31d32670d91
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Neil Andersson  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Community-led trials: Intervention co-design in a cluster randomised controlled trial 
260 |b BMC,   |c 2017-05-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1186/s12889-017-4288-6 
500 |a 1471-2458 
520 |a Abstract In conventional randomised controlled trials (RCTs), researchers design the interventions. In the Camino Verde trial, each intervention community designed its own programmes to prevent dengue. Instead of fixed actions or menus of activities to choose from, the trial randomised clusters to a participatory research protocol that began with sharing and discussing evidence from a local survey, going on to local authorship of the action plan for vector control. Adding equitable stakeholder engagement to RCT infrastructure anchors the research culturally, making it more meaningful to stakeholders. Replicability in other conditions is straightforward, since all intervention clusters used the same engagement protocol to discuss and to mobilize for dengue prevention. The ethical codes associated with RCTs play out differently in community-led pragmatic trials, where communities essentially choose what they want to do. Several discussion groups in each intervention community produced multiple plans for prevention, recognising different time lines. Some chose fast turnarounds, like elimination of breeding sites, and some chose longer term actions like garbage disposal and improving water supplies. A big part of the skill set for community-led trials is being able to stand back and simply support communities in what they want to do and how they want to do it, something that does not come naturally to many vector control programs or to RCT researchers. Unexpected negative outcomes can come from the turbulence implicit in participatory research. One example was the gender dynamic in the Mexican arm of the Camino Verde trial. Strong involvement of women in dengue control activities seems to have discouraged men in settings where activity in public spaces or outside of the home would ordinarily be considered a "male competence". Community-led trials address the tension between one-size-fits-all programme interventions and local needs. Whatever the conventional wisdom about how prevention works at a system level, programmes have to be perceived as locally relevant and they must engage stakeholders who make them work. Locally, each participating community has to know the intervention is relevant to them; they have to want to do it. That happens much more easily if they design the programme themselves. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n BMC Public Health, Vol 17, Iss S1, Pp 5-9 (2017) 
787 0 |n http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-017-4288-6 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2458 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/81e12b2ee24d46cd9e66c31d32670d91  |z Connect to this object online.