Table 3 Lessons learned: potential strengths and challenges of the BEAT-HIV CEG model

Potential strengths

  Creates synergy between goals of community-based organization, goals of community-advisory board, and aims of HIV research

  Creates greater awareness of how to work together and creation of shared space

  Overcomes shortcomings of traditional CAB-scientists model

  Rectifies unequal power relationships that have been historical issues for CABs

  Provides joint priority areas for collective input

  Keep individuals engaged while maintaining meeting time to an acceptable level, and helps with multi-directional skill building for CEG members

Potential challenges

  Independence of the CAB would be co-opted by direct linkages to investigators and CBO

  CAB members may not be equally recognized for time commitments compared to other CEG members

  Defining projects with community leadership (CAB- or CBO-led) versus input for basic or clinical sciences research

  Ensuring community recommendations are incorporated into HIV cure-directed clinical trial design

  Establishing clear yet iterative rules of engagement (e.g., commitment to building mutual understanding, respect, inclusion, equity, diversity and collaboration, among others)

  Periodically define and refine roles and resonsibilities of CEG members, and to ensure equity in parties responsible for leading each project or working groups

  Managing expectations regarding differential time commitments, availabilities and skills of CEG members

  Avoiding conflating community engagement with recruitment efforts for clinical trials and participation in research