Search

BACKGROUND: The global campaign for Undetectable equals Untransmittable (U = U) seeks to spread awareness of HIV treatment as prevention, aiming to enhance psychological well-being and diminish stigma. Despite its potential benefits, U = U faces challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa, with low awareness and hesitancy to endorse it. We sought to develop a U = U communications intervention to support HIV counselling in primary healthcare settings in South Africa. METHODS: We used Intervention Mapping (IM), a theory-based framework to develop the Undetectable and You intervention for the South African context. The six steps of the IM protocol were systematically applied to develop the intervention including a needs assessment consisting of a systematic review and qualitative research including focus group discussions (FGD) and key informant (KI) interviews. Program objectives and target population were determined before designing the intervention components and implementation plan. RESULTS: The needs assessment indicated low global U = U awareness, especially in Africa, and scepticism about its effectiveness. Lay counsellors and clinic managers stressed the need for a simple and standardized presentation of U = U addressing both patients needs for encouragement and modelling of U = U success but also clear guidance toward ART adherence behaviour. Findings from each step of the process informed successive steps. Our final intervention consisted of personal testimonials of PLHIV role models and their partners, organized as an App to deliver U = U information to patients in primary healthcare settings. CONCLUSIONS: We outline an intervention development strategy, currently in evaluation stage, utilizing IM with formative research and input from key U = U stakeholders and people living with HIV (PLHIV).

Introduction: We sought to understand the Undetectable = Untransmittable (U = U) communication needs of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and barriers to U = U communication among healthcare providers (HCPs) in South Africa. Methods: We conducted five focus group discussions (FGDs) with HCPs (N = 42) including nurses and counsellors from primary healthcare clinics (PHCs) in the Gauteng and Free State Provinces of South Africa, three FGDs (N = 27) with PLHIV recruited by snowball sampling from civil society organizations, and 27 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with recently diagnosed PLHIV in Johannesburg. IDIs and FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed, translated to English, and analysed thematically. Results: PLHIV were largely unaware and sceptical of U = U as the message appeared to contradict the mainstream HIV prevention clinical guidance. The low viral load (VL) knowledge further reduced confidence in U = U. PLHIV need support and guidance on the best approaches for sharing U = U information and disclosing their VL status to their partners, highlighting the central role of community understanding of U = U and VL to mediate the desired stigma reduction, social acceptance and emotional benefits of U = U for PLHIV. HCPs were uneasy about sharing U = U due to concerns about risk compensation and ART non-adherence and worried about enabling any ensuing HIV transmission. HCPs also need a simple, unambiguous, and consistent narrative for U = U, integrated with other HIV prevention messages. PLHIV and HCPs alike recommended a patient-centred approach to communicating U = U, focusing primarily on attaining viral suppression and emphasizing that condomless sex is only safe during periods of ART adherence. Conclusions: These data highlight the need for simple U = U communication support targeting both HCP and PLHIV. Culturally appropriate communication materials, with training and ongoing mentorship of the clinic staff, are essential to improve patient-centred U = U communication in clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]