The origins of a research community in the Majengo observational cohort study, Nairobi, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the 1980s the Majengo Observational Cohort Study (MOCS) has examined sexually transmitted infections, in particular HIV/AIDS, in a cohort of sex workers in Majengo, an impoverished urban village in Nairobi, Kenya. The MOCS investigators have faced criticism since the women have remained in the sex trade for the duration of their participation in the study, prompting concerns about exploitation. Yet despite these concerns, the cohort has survived for almost 30 years. METHODS: In this retrospective qualitative case study, we examine the community engagement practices of the MOCS and explore the factors that account for its durability. RESULTS: Women in sex work in Kenya were a highly stigmatized and disfranchised community. As a result, there was no natural 'community' of sex workers either in Nairobi or in the Majengo village. The Majengo clinic aimed to reduce the barriers to health care the women experienced at the STC clinic by bringing the services closer to them and by providing a non-discriminatory environment. The women acknowledged the fact they had hoped their participation in the MOCS would have helped them find a path out of the sex trade. But our findings also add another dimension to this debate, since every cohort member we interviewed expressed her gratitude for the deep impact the MOCS has had on her life, much of it beyond the improved health status made possible by access to quality healthcare services. Participation in the MOCS has improved and enriched their lives. The CE activities have played a central role in creating a community that did not exist independently of the MOCS. CONCLUSIONS: Our case study identified 3 distinct phases of community engagement in the MOCS: (1) reaching out: mobilization, dialogue and education; (2) foundations of trust through relationships of care; and (3) leveraging existing social capital to form a cohort community. The findings demonstrate the importance of some of the less obvious benefits of participation in research, namely the evolving experience of community and the accompanying gains in personal security and solidarity that have kept the women in the cohort, some for 20 years or more.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".