From collaborator to colleague: a community-based program science approach for engaging Kenyan communities of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in HIV research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, researchers have used community-based participatory approaches to achieve outcomes relevant to local communities, to build collaborative and sustainable research infrastructures, and to address disparities in knowledge production. Notwithstanding these strengths, communities and researchers have questioned its success in addressing power imbalances inherent in collaborative research encounters. In this methodological paper, we describe a novel community-based program science approach to guide an interdisciplinary research project on HIV self-testing among men who have sex with men in three Kenyan counties. Drawing on ethnographic field notes, we detail how community researchers and their academic and programmatic partners collaborated through all phases of the research process, including research design and data collection. Importantly, community researchers also played an integral role in data analysis and dissemination, going well beyond the conventional role of ‘community engagement’ in global health research. We also present findings from qualitative interviews conducted by community researchers with their peers to inform the rollout of HIV self-testing kits in their respective county-contexts. Our approach highlights that engaging community directly in evidence production allows research findings – owned and generated by communities on their own behalf – to be fed more swiftly and effectively into community-led program delivery.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it