Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. But community members, especially those from groups and communities that are considered disadvantaged and marginalized, rarely have a say in the agendas and priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. This article explores how to achieve their inclusion in priority-setting for global health research projects. A total of 29 in-depth interviews and one focus group were undertaken with researchers, research ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community-based organization staff. Thematic analysis identified two core dimensions of inclusion—representation and voice—and what is necessary to realize them with marginalized groups and communities in global health research priority-setting. A set of ethical considerations is proposed to assist researchers and their partners design more inclusive priority-setting processes.
AbelsonJ.GiacominiM.LehouxP.GauvinF.-P. (2007). Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy, 82, 37-50.
2.
AldermanK. B.HipgraveD.Jimenez-SotoE. (2013). Public engagement in health priority-setting in low- and middle-income countries: Current trends and considerations for policy. PLoS Medicine, 10(8), e1001495.
3.
AliJ.KassN. E.SewankamboN. K.WhiteT. D.HyderA. A. (2014). Evaluating international research ethics capacity development: An empirical approach. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 41-51.
4.
ArnsteinS. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224.
5.
BenatarS. R.SingerP. A. (2010). Responsibilities in international research: A new look revisited. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 194-197.
6.
BenhabibS. (1996). Towards a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In BenhabibS. (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67-94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BlacksherE. (2013). Participatory and deliberative practices in health: Meanings, distinctions, and implications for health equity. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), Article 6.
8.
BlacksherE.DiebelA.ForestP. G.GooldS. D.AbelsonJ. (2012). What is public deliberation?Hastings Center Report, 42, 14-17.
9.
CampbellJ. L.QuincyC.OssermanJ.PedersenO. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interview: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 294-320.
10.
CargoM.MercerS. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325-350.
11.
CornwallA. (2004). Spaces for transformation: Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development. In HickeyS.MohanG. (Eds.), Participation from tyranny to transformation (pp. 75-91). London, England: Zed Books.
12.
CornwallA. (2011). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. In CornwallA. (Ed.), The participation reader (pp. 203-223). New York, NY: Zed Books.
13.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2017). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
14.
CrockerD. A. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GaventaJ. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing transformative possibilities. In HickeyS.MohanG. (Eds.), Participation from tyranny to transformation (pp. 25-58). London, England: Zed Books.
16.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
17.
GibsonJ. L.MartinD. K.SingerP. A. (2005). Priority-setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2355-2362.
18.
GoodinR. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
GooldS. D.BiddleA. K.KlippG.HallC. N.DanisM. (2005). Choosing healthplans all together: A deliberative exercise for allocating limited health care resources. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 30, 563-601.
20.
GouletD. (2006). Development ethics at work: Explorations-1960-2002. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
GruskinS.DanielsN. (2008). Process is the point: Justice and human rights: Priority setting and fair deliberative process. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1573-1577.
22.
HruschkaD. L.SchwartzD.St JohnD. C.Picone-DecardE.JenkinsR. A.CareyJ. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307-331.
23.
HutchisonK.RogersW.EntwistleV. A. (2017). Addressing deficits and injustices: The potential epistemic contributions of patients to research. Health Care Analysis, 25, 386-403. doi:10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5
24.
KahaneD.LoptsonK.HerrimanJ.HardyM. (2013). Stakeholder and citizen roles in public deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(2), Article 2.
25.
KapoorI. (2002). Deliberative democracy or agnostic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe debate for third world politics. Alternatives: Local, Global, Political, 27, 459-487.
26.
LondonA. J. (2005). Justice and the human development approach to international research. Hastings Center Report, 35, 24-37.
27.
MarshV.KombeF.FitzpatrickR.WilliamsT. N.ParkerM.MolyneuxS. (2013). Consulting communities on feedback of genetic findings in international health research: Sharing sickle cell disease and carrier information in coastal Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics, 14, Article 41.
28.
MittonC.SmithN.PeacockS.EvoyB.AbelsonJ. (2009). Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy, 91, 219-228.
29.
O’DohertyK.GauvinF.-P.GroganC.FriedmanW. (2012). Implementing a public deliberative forum. Hastings Center Report, 42, 20-23.
30.
O’MearaW. P.TsofaB.MolyneuxS.GoodmanC.McKenzieF. E. (2011). Community and facility—level engagement in planning and budgeting for the government health sector—A district perspective from Kenya. Health Policy, 99, 234-243.
31.
PhillipsA. (1993). Democracy and difference. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
32.
PiersonL.MillumJ. (2018). Health research priority setting: The duties of individual funders. American Journal of Bioethics, 18(11), 6-17.
33.
PowersM.FadenR. (2006). Social justice: The moral foundations of public health and health policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
PrattB.de VriesJ. (2018). Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity. Bioethics, 32, 454-463. doi:10.1111/bioe.12465
35.
PrattB.HyderA. A. (2019). Ethical responsibilities of research funders to advance global health justice. Global Public Health, 14, 80-90. doi:10.1080/17441692.2018.1471148
36.
PrattB.MerrittM.HyderA. A. (2016). Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model. Social Science & Medicine, 151, 215-224.
37.
RichardsonH. (2002). Democratic autonomy: Public reasoning about the ends of policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2002). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
39.
ShayoE. H.NorheimO. F.MboeraL.ByskovJ.MalukaS.KamuzoraP.BlystadA. (2012). Challenges to fair decision-making processes in the context of health care services: A qualitative assessment from Tanzania. International Journal for Equity in Health, 11, 30.
40.
WallersteinN.DuranB. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 312-323.
41.
WolffJ.de-ShalitA. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
YoungI. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
