Search

Introduction A data monitoring committee (DMC) is an independent group of experts who assess the ongoing scientific and ethical integrity of a study through periodic analyses of study data. The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the structure, membership and deliberations of DMCs enable them to address ethical issues.Methods We conducted qualitative individual interviews (n=22) with DMC members from countries across Africa, the Americas, South Asia and the UK. We selected interview respondents through purposive sampling, managed data using NVivo (Release V.1.7) and analysed data thematically.Results All respondents were highly experienced professionals; many (18/22) had received training in medicine and/or statistics. One respondent had academic qualifications in ethics, and four indicated that they served on DMCs as ethicists. While respondents generally felt DMCs should be required for studies that were high-risk or enrolled vulnerable populations, some were concerned about the overuse of DMCs. There were divergent views on the necessity of geographical and disciplinary representation in DMC membership, including about whether ethicists were helpful. Many respondents described a DMC member recruitment process that they felt was somewhat exclusive. While one respondent received DMC-specific training, most described learning on the job. Respondents generally agreed that study protocols and DMC charters were key guiding documents for addressing ethical issues and described DMC deliberations that often, but not always, involved consensus-building.Conclusion This study is one of the first to consider the ethical implications of DMC structure, membership and deliberations. The potential overuse of DMCs, DMC member recruitment processes that seem somewhat insular, limited training for DMC members, and divergent approaches to deliberation may limit the capacity of DMCs for addressing ethical issues. Further research on DMC structure and processes could help enhance the ethical preparedness of DMCs.

Introduction Efforts to improve health outcomes among adolescents and young adults living with HIV (ALHs) are hampered by limited adolescent engagement in HIV-related research. We sought to understand the views of adolescents, caregivers and healthcare workers (HCWs) about who should make decisions regarding ALHs’ research participation.Methods We conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with ALHs (aged 14–24 years), caregivers of ALHs and HCWs from six HIV care clinics in Western Kenya. We used semi-structured guides to explore ALHs’ involvement in research decisions. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis; perspectives were triangulated between groups.Results We conducted 24 FGDs and 44 IDIs: 12 FGDs with ALHs, 12 with caregivers, and 44 IDIs with HCWs, involving 216 participants. HCWs often suggested that HIV research decision-making should involve caregivers and ALHs deciding together. In contrast, ALHs and parents generally thought decisions should be made individually, whether by HCWs/research teams (although this is likely ethically problematic), adolescents or caregivers. Caregiver and ALH preferences depended on ALHs’ age, with younger ALHs requiring more support. A few caregivers felt that ALHs should consult with the research team/HCWs due to their greater knowledge of clinical care. ALHs emphasised that they should independently decide because they thought they had the right to do so and the capacity to consent. Poor communication and parental non-disclosure of HIV status influenced ALHs’ views to exclude caregivers from decision-making. Regarding influences on research decision-making, ALHs were more willing to participate based on perceived contribution to science and less interested in participating in studies with potential risks, including loss of confidentiality.Discussion While research teams and HCWs felt that adolescents and caregivers should jointly make research decisions, ALHs and caregivers generally felt individuals should make decisions. As ALHs sometimes find caregiver support lacking, improving family dynamics might enhance research engagement.

Introduction Adolescents and youth living with HIV (AYLHIV) have lower retention in care, adherence to treatment, and viral suppression compared with adults. Stepped care is a process by which clients are assigned to increasingly intensive services or ‘steps’ according to level of need. Differentiated care, in which stable clients access less frequent services, can be combined with stepped care to align needs and preferences of youth to promote optimal engagement in care.Methods and analysis This hybrid type I effectiveness implementation cluster randomised trial aims to evaluate a data-informed stepped care (DiSC) intervention for AYLHIV. AYLHIV ages 10–24 receiving care at 24 HIV treatment facilities in Kisumu, Homabay and Migori counties in Kenya will be enrolled. Twelve facilities will be randomised to the DiSC intervention, and 12 will provide standard care. A clinical assignment tool developed by the study team will be used at intervention sites to assign AYLHIV to one of four steps based on risk for loss to follow-up: differentiated care, standard care, counselling services or intensive support services. The primary clinical outcome is retention in care, specifically missed visits (failure to return within 30 days for any visit) and 12-month loss to follow-up. Implementation outcomes are based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Proportions of missed visits will be compared using mixed effect models clustered by facility and participant.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00011096), Maseno University Ethical Review Committee (MUERC/00917/20) and the Kenya National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (444824). AYLHIV provide written informed consent when legally permitted, or assent with caregiver permission for minors. Study staff will work with a Community Advisory Board, including youth members, to disseminate results via discussions, presentations, journal publications and local or international conferences.Trial registration number NCT05007717.