Search

Novel monitoring technologies in HIV research, such as electronic adherence monitors (EAMs), have changed the nature of researcher-participant interactions. Yet little is known about how EAMs and the resulting interaction between researchers and participants affect research participation and the data gathered. We interviewed participants and research assistants (RAs) in an observational cohort study involving EAMs for HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Uganda. We qualitatively explored interviewees' views about ethical issues surrounding EAMs and assessed data with conventional and directed content analysis. Participants valued their relationships with RAs and were preoccupied with RAs' perceptions of them. Participants were pleased when the EAM revealed regular adherence, and annoyed when it revealed non-adherence that contradicted self-reported pill-taking behavior. For many, the desire to maintain a good impression incentivized adherence. But some sought to creatively conceal non-adherence, or refused to use the EAM to avoid revealing non-adherence to RAs. These findings show that participants' perceptions of the study staff's perceptions of them affected the experience of being monitored, study participation, and ultimately the data gathered in the study. Investigators in monitoring-based research should be aware that social interactions between participants and study staff could affect both the practical and ethical conduct of that research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology-based interventions for behavior change, such as adherence monitors and SMS text messages, can improve adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy. It is unclear, however, how the effects of such interventions are maintained when interventions are withdrawn. We explored resiliency of people living with HIV in coping with adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) after withdrawing an adherence support intervention of real-time adherence monitors linked to SMS text messages at study closure. This is a qualitative study conducted with former participants of a pilot randomized controlled trial after study closure. Between April 2016 and November 2016, we used convenient sampling to interview 28 of the 62 participants from the pilot trial, which was conducted in rural Uganda. Interviews elicited information on experiences of taking ART in the absence of the intervention, coping strategies, and changes in social support interactions. Data were analyzed inductively using content analysis. Most participants demonstrated resilience through learning adherence from the intervention; and internalizing the habit of medication adherence. They seemed to have a sense of self-esteem, positive thinking, and access to supportive relationships. Other participants employed adaptive coping strategies, such as using alternative cues (e.g., alarms), accessing spiritual support, and adjusting their medication time to their routine. A few participants lacked resiliency, lost the habit and struggled with adherence. They were dependent on the intervention, appeared isolated and psychologically stressed, and were unable to overcome challenges associated with poor social support systems. Intervention-related benefits may or may not persist after the intervention is withdrawn. Contingent on individuals" underlying characteristics and relationships, participants manifested resiliency through learning and internalization, as well as using alternative coping strategies. Such resiliency could facilitate the use of short-term interventions, which are particularly important for resource-limited settings. Participants should be referred to available additional support at study closure when needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the dependence on digital medical devices like electronic adherence monitors (EAM) in resource-limited settings in the article by Klugman and colleagues in 2018. Topics covered include its risks to health and potential loss of trust in digital medicine, the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in medical device dependency, and its issues of optimal functionality versus access and compatibility. Also noted are concerns on technology malfunction and unavailability.