Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney...

Achieving effective community engagement has been an objective of U.S. National Institutes of Health-funded HIV research efforts, including participation of persons with HIV. Community Advisory Boards (CABs) have remained the predominant model for community engagement since their creation in 1989. As HIV cure-directed research efforts have grown into larger academic-industry partnerships directing resources toward both basic and clinical research under the Martin Delaney Collaboratories (MDC), community input models have also evolved. The BEAT-HIV MDC Collaboratory, based at The Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, United States, implemented a three-part model for community engagement that has shown success in providing greater impact for community engagement across basic, biomedical, and social sciences research efforts.

In this paper, we review the case study of the formation of the BEAT-HIV Community Engagement Group (CEG) model, starting with the historical partnership between The Wistar Institute as a basic research center and Philadelphia FIGHT as a not-for-profit community-based organization (CBO), and culminating with the growth of community engagement under the BEAT-HIV MDC. Second, we present the impact of a cooperative structure including a Community Advisory Board (CAB), CBO, and researchers through the BEAT-HIV CEG model, and highlight collaborative projects that demonstrate the potential strengths, challenges, and opportunities of this model. We also describe challenges and future opportunities for the use of the CEG model.

Our CEG model integrating a CBO, CAB and scientists could help move us towards the goal of effective, equitable and ethical engagement in HIV cure-directed research. In sharing our lessons learned, challenges and growing pains, we contribute to the science of community engagement into biomedical research efforts with an emphasis on HIV cure-directed research. Our documented experience with implementing the CEG supports greater discussion and independent implementation efforts for this model to engage communities into working teams in a way we find a meaningful, ethical, and sustainable model in support of basic, clinical/biomedical, social sciences and ethics research.