Search

This pack has been designed to be used alongside the Peer Research Training Resource (https://doi.org/10.25561/94819) and includes: • Skills, experience, and training reviews for Advisory Group Members and Peer Researchers • Zoom Interviews: Guide for Peer Researchers • Useful COVID-19 resources for people living with HIV The pack is suitable for academics and public involvement practitioners who are involving people with lived experience as co-researchers in research. The material presented here was developed for a participatory research study on COVID-19 experiences among people living with HIV where interviews were conducted online.

Background: There are concerns that the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) may result in an increased incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence for this is mixed and has mostly been based on reviews focussed on gay and bisexual men and transgender women, while none have summarised evidence in cisgender women. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to explore whether daily, oral PrEP use is associated with changes in bacterial STI occurrence (diagnoses or self-reported) and/or risk among HIV seronegative cisgender women (ciswomen). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results: We included 11 full text articles in a narrative synthesis, with the studies published between 2012 and 2021. The studies were mostly based in Africa (n=7, 63.6%) and reported on 3168 ciswomen using PrEP aged 16–56 years. Studies had marked differences in variables, including measurements and definitions (e.g., STI type) and limited data available looking specifically at ciswomen, principally in studies with both male and female participants. The limited evidence suggests that PrEP use is not associated with increased STI rates in ciswomen generally; however, adolescent girls and young women in Sub Saharan Africa have a higher prevalence of bacterial STIs prior to PrEP initiation, compared to adult ciswomen and female sex workers. Conclusions: We suggest future PrEP research make efforts to include ciswomen as study participants and report stratified results by gender identity to provide adequate data to inform guidelines for PrEP implementation. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019130438

Background: There are concerns that the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) may result in an increased incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence for this is mixed and has mostly been based on reviews focussed on gay and bisexual men and transgender women, while none have summarised evidence in cisgender women. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to explore whether daily, oral PrEP use is associated with changes in bacterial STI occurrence (diagnoses or self-reported) and/or risk among HIV seronegative cisgender women (ciswomen). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results: We included 11 full text articles in a narrative synthesis, with the studies published between 2012 and 2021. The studies were mostly based in Africa (n=7, 63.6%) and reported on 3168 ciswomen using PrEP aged 16–56 years. Studies had marked differences in variables, including measurements and definitions (e.g., STI type) and limited data available looking specifically at ciswomen, principally in studies with both male and female participants. The limited evidence suggests that PrEP use is not associated with increased STI rates in ciswomen generally; however, adolescent girls and young women in Sub Saharan Africa have a higher prevalence of bacterial STIs prior to PrEP initiation, compared to adult ciswomen and female sex workers. Conclusions: We suggest future PrEP research make efforts to include ciswomen as study participants and report stratified results by gender identity to provide adequate data to inform guidelines for PrEP implementation. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019130438

This training slide deck, developed by the Patient Experience Research Centre at Imperial College, London, aims to support and provide a starting point for academics and public involvement practitioners who want to train people with lived experience to become co-researchers in qualitative/interview-based research studies. The resource was developed from a series of online training sessions which were originally used to induct and train peer researchers for a participatory research study on COVID-19 experiences among people living with HIV and covers training on: • Research Integrity: Ethics and Research Data Management • Qualitative Research and Public Involvement • Interviewing Skills and Emotional Wellbeing • Analysing Interview Transcripts

This informal session led by the Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC), in collaboration with Positively UK, invited people living with, affected by, or working in HIV to share their experience, views, questions and concerns on accessing HIV care during COVID-19. The aim of the call was to gather feedback on specific areas to help guide a proposed qualitative (interview-based study) looking to explore experiences, specifically on: 1. Challenges and concerns in managing HIV care during COVID-19 2. Challenges in the provision of HIV care during COVID-19 3. Opportunities presented for HIV care during COVID-19 We also wished to inspire new ways to rapidly engage and involve communities remotely during a public health emergency, through strengthening partnerships with existing groups (in this case, Positively UK).

The Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC) at Imperial College London is developing research to explore and understand people’s views about, experiences of and behavioural responses to the outbreak in the UK and elsewhere. To guide that effort and to help inform COVID-19 research and responses more broadly - for example in mathematical modelling and policy - PERC launched an online community involvement initiative that sought rapid, early insight from members of the public and aimed to establish a network for ongoing community engagement. Priority areas for COVID-19 research Vaccine development was considered the most urgent research priority for many respondents. Social studies exploring the public’s experiences, risk perceptions and behaviours during this outbreak were necessary and important according to 95% of the respondents. Such research could: Improve the way the current outbreak response is planned and implemented; Improve the way information and guidance is provided to and understood by the public; Optimise the support provided to communities and vulnerable groups; and Improve future outbreak preparedness. Other recommended areas of research included: Understanding the role of the media in influencing how people react and respond; Furthering our basic understanding of the virus – how it spreads, who it affects the most and why, and whether people achieve and maintain immunity after being infected; Critiquing the UK’s response to the pandemic against that of other countries; and Ensuring lessons can be learnt from this outbreak to better equip us for future outbreaks, and public health emergencies in general. Key unmet needs amongst communities The main challenges described by respondents were ineffective communication, including access to information and information overload; and conflicting guidance and misinformation. Respondents’ described feelings of concern, confusion and, in some cases, panic as a result of these communication and information challenges. Others shared their frustration that there was nowhere to post their concerns or questions. In addition, respondents expressed a need for more detailed and bespoke practical guidance about their risk and how best to prepare and protect themselves and their loved ones. Almost half (47%) wanted to hear about the latest research on the virus, and 45% wanted a dedicated internet portal where they could access the latest information and trusted guidance. Making information more accessible to different communities, including those who are not online and those who have English as a second language was also highlighted as a priority.

Background: Gaps remain on the safety of egg intake on cardiovascular health, setting the study’s aim to investigate the association between quantity and frequency of egg consumption, with established dyslipidemia. Methods: Study participants (N = 3558, 40.3% males) included individuals from the Hellenic National and Nutrition Health Survey (HNNHS), of national representation. Quantity and frequency of egg consumption was determined. Minimally adjusted, multivariable logistic and linear analysis were used to assess egg consumption and dyslipidemia. Results: The more frequent egg consumption compared to no or rare egg consumption significantly decreased the odds of dyslipidemia in the minimally adjusted (Odds Ratio (OR) for frequency: 0.83; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.752, 0.904; OR for quantified frequency: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.796, 0.963) and the fully adjusted models (OR for frequency: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.718, 0.887; OR for quantified frequency: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.759, 0.945). Level of serum cholesterol and LDL-c were significantly lower with higher frequency and quantified frequency of egg consumption in all models. Conclusion: Eggs do not increase the risk of dyslipidemia and can be consumed as part of a healthy diet that is high in fiber and low in saturated fat, without excessive energy intake, by all individuals. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.