Search

Introduction: Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high‐impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, "grey areas," or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research. Discussion: A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH‐funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH‐related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence‐based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas. Conclusions: HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high‐impact HIV/MH implementation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Respondent‐driven sampling (RDS) has been an effective sampling strategy for HIV research in many settings, but has had limited success among some youth in the United States. We evaluated a modified RDS approach for sampling Black and Latinx sexual and gender minority youth (BLSGMY) and explored how lived experiences and social contexts of BLSGMY youth may impact traditional RDS assumptions. Methods: RDS was implemented in three US cities, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington DC, to engage BLSGMY aged 15 to 24 years in HIV prevention or care intervention trials. RDS was modified to include targeted seed recruitment from venues, Internet and health clinics, and provided options for electronic or paper coupons. Qualitative interviews were conducted among a sub‐sample of RDS participants to explore their experiences with RDS. Interviews were coded using RDS assumptions as an analytic framework. Results: Between August 2017 and October 2019, 405 participants were enrolled, 1670 coupons were distributed, with 133 returned, yielding a 0.079 return rate. The maximum recruitment depth was four waves among seeds that propagated. Self‐reported median network size was 5 (IQR 2 to 10) and reduced to 3 (IQR 1 to 5) when asked how many peers were seen in the past 30 days. Qualitative interviews (n = 27) revealed that small social networks, peer trust and targeted referral of peers with certain characteristics challenged network, random recruitment, and reciprocity assumptions of RDS. HIV stigma and research hesitancy were barriers to participation and peer referral. Other situational factors, such as phone ownership and access to reliable transportation, reportedly created challenges for referred peers to participate in research. Conclusions: Small social networks and varying relationships with peers among BLSGMY challenge assumptions that underlie traditional RDS. Modified RDS approaches, including those that incorporate social media, may support recruitment for community‐based research but may challenge assumptions of reciprocal relationships. Research hesitancy and situational barriers are relevant and must be addressed across any sampling method and study design that includes BLSGMY in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: The Global Fund and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) are major donors to HIV services with key populations (KPs) to achieve the UNAIDS 95‐95‐95 epidemic control goals. The programmes they fund are not always well aligned or coordinated, decreasing their effectiveness. Joint assessments are designed and led by LINKAGES, a project funded by PEPFAR and the US Agency for International Development, to improve coordination among donors and on‐the‐ground implementation of KP HIV programmes. Joint assessments help identify barriers that prevent KPs from accessing interventions along the cascade of prevention, diagnosis and treatment services, and provide recommendations to improve and align programmes. Detailed reports from eight assessments in Malawi, Cameroon, Swaziland, Haiti, Angola, Nepal, Côte d'Ivoire and Botswana were analysed for thematic challenges, and recommendations are presented. The purpose of the paper is to identify commonalities across KP HIV programmes that were found through the assessments so others can learn and then strengthen their programmes to become more effective. Discussion: The joint cascade assessments offered countries feedback on HIV programme challenges and recommendations for strengthening them at national, subnational and local levels. Shared intervention areas included: (1) robust population size estimates to inform service delivery targets and to budget resources for KP outreach; (2) accessible and KP‐friendly services most relevant to individuals to increase retention in the HIV cascade; (3) decentralized, community‐based services for HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy, and new approaches including self‐testing and PrEP; (4) addressing structural issues of stigma, discrimination and violence against KPs to create a more enabling environment; and (5) more effective and continual tracking of KPs across the cascade, and coordinated, harmonized monitoring tools and reporting systems between donor‐funded and national programmes. Conclusions: The assessment teams and country stakeholders viewed the assessments as a best practice for coordinating donor‐funded programmes that may overlap or inefficiently serve KPs. Global and national HIV programmes need investments of time, resources, and commitment from stakeholders to continually course‐correct to align and improve programmes for sustained impact. The type of continued partnership demonstrated by the joint assessments is key to address HIV among KPs globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]