Opportunities,Ethical Challenges,and Lessons Learned from Working with Peer Research Assistants in a Multi-Method HIV Community-Based Research Study in Ontario,Canada
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2012
Opportunities,Ethical Challenges,and Lessons Learned from Working with Peer Research Assistants in a Multi-Method HIV Community-Based Research Study in Ontario,Canada
We discuss ethical challenges and opportunities experienced by peer research assistants (PRAs) in a multi-method HIV community-based research study in Ontario, Canada. We review lessons learned and best practices based on our experience conducting a qualitative investigation of research priorities with diverse women living with HIV (WLWH) and implementation of a cross-sectional survey with African, Caribbean, and Black WLWH. While some opportunities were similar across research phases for PRAs (e.g., skill building), distinct challenges emerged in qualitative and quantitative phases. For example, our training did not adequately prepare PRAs with focus group facilitation skills; Revised at times, survey implementation became counseling sessions. Researchers should assess how best to support PRAs as part of multi-method research processes.
BallJ. & JanystP. (2008). Enacting research ethics in partnerships with indigenous communities in Canada: “Do it in a good way.”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 33–51.
2.
BeanS. & SilvaD. S. (2010). Betwixt and between: Peer recruiter proximity in community-based research. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 18–19.
3.
CampbellC. & DeaconH. (2006). Unravelling the contexts of stigma: From internalisation to resistance to change. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 411–417.
CollierD. & ElmanC. (2008). Chapter 34: Qualitative and multi-method research: Organizations, publication, and reflections on integration. In Box-SteffensmeierJ.BradyH. E., & CollierD. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
CollinsP. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
7.
CollinsP. Y.Von UngerH., & ArmbristerA. (2008). Church ladies, good girls, and locas: Stigma and the intersection of gender, ethnicity, mental illness, and sexuality in relation to HIV risk. Social Science and Medicine, 67(3), 389–397.
8.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139, 139–167.
9.
CreswellJ. H. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DoyalL. (2009). Challenges in researching life with HIV/AIDS: An intersectional analysis of black African migrants in London. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 11(2), 173–188.
11.
DunkleK. L.JewkesR. K.BrownH. C.GrayG. E.McIntryreJ. A., & HarlowS. D. (2004). Gender-based violence, relationship power, and risk of HIV infection in women attending antenatal clinics in South Africa. Lancet, 363, 1415–1421.
12.
FlickerS. (2006). Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of the positive youth project. Health Education and Behavior, 35(1), 70–86.
13.
FlickerS. & GutaA. (2008). Ethical approaches to adolescent participation in sexual health research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(1), 3–10.
14.
FlickerS.GutaA.LarkinJ.FlynnS.FridkinA.TraversR.PoleJ. D., & LayneC. (2010). Survey design from the ground up: Collaboratively creating the Toronto Teen Survey. Health Promotion Practice, 11(1), 112–122.
15.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
16.
FlyvbjergB. (2011). Case study. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th edition (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
GreeneS.AhluwaliaA.WatsonJ.TuckerR., & RourkeS. (2009). Between skepticism and empowerment: The experiences of peer research assistants in HIV/AIDS, housing and homelessness community-based research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 361–373.
18.
IsraelB.SchulzA.ParkerE., & BeckerA. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173–194.
19.
KruegerK. A. & CaseyM. A. (2009). Fourth edition focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
LandyD. C. & SharpR. R. (2010). Examining the potential for exploitation by local intermediaries. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 12–13.
21.
LaneS. D.RubinsteinR. A.KeefeR. H.WebsterN.CibulaD. A.. (2004). Structural violence and racial disparity in HIV transmission. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 15(3), 319–335.
22.
LogieC. & GadallaT. M. (2009). Meta-analysis of health and demographic correlates of stigma towards people living with HIV. AIDS Care, 21(6), 742–753.
23.
LogieC.JamesL.TharaoW., & LoutfyM. (2011). Race, gender, sexual orientation, HIV and sex work: Intersectional stigma experienced by women living with HIV in Ontario, Canada. PLoS Medicine, 8(11), e1001124.
24.
MahajanA. P.SaylesJ. N.PatelV. A.RemienR. H.SawiresS. R.. (2008). Stigma in the HIV/AIDS epidemic: A review of the literature and recommendations for the way forward. AIDS, 22(S2), S67–79.
25.
MarguliesP. (1994). Asylum, intersectionality, and AIDS: Women with HIV as a persecuted social group. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 8(4), 521–555.
MolyneuxS.KamuyaD., & MarshV. (2010). Community members employed on research projects face crucial, often under-recognized ethical dilemmas. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 24–26.
28.
National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: National Cancer Institute, US Department of Health & Human Services, NIH publication 05–3896.
29.
ParkerR. & AggletonP. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science and Medicine, 57(1), 13–24.
30.
PhillipsT. (2010). Protecting the subject: PDR and the potential for compromised consent. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 14–15.
31.
PostmaJ. (2008). Balancing power among academic and community partners: The case of El Proyecto Bienestar. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 17–32.
32.
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). (2009). HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report to December31, 2008. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.
33.
RocheB.GutaA., & FlickerS. (2010). Peer research in action: Models of practice. Toronto: Wellesley Institute.
34.
RossL. R.LoupA.NelsonR. M.BotkinJ. R.KostR.SmithG. R., & GehlertS. (2010). The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 19–31.
35.
ShieldsS. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 301–311.
36.
SilkaL.CleghornG. D.GrullonM., & TellezT. (2008). Creating community-based participatory research in a diverse community: A case study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 5–16.
37.
SimonC. & MosavelM. (2010). Community members as recruiters of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 3–11.
38.
SumartojoE. (2000). Structural factors in HIV prevention: Concepts, examples, and implications for research. AIDS, 14, S3–S10.
39.
UNAIDS. (2010). UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS.
