Search

Background: There has been increased attention to the need for, and the positive impact of, engaged or participatory science in recent years. Implementation scientists have an opportunity to leverage and contribute to engagement science (ES) through the systematic integration of engagement into implementation science (IS). The purpose of this study was to gather information from researchers and others to develop a prioritized list of research needs and opportunities at the intersection of IS and ES. Methods: We conducted three Zoom-based focus groups with 20 researchers to generate a list of unmet needs, barriers, and to describe normative themes about use of ES and IS. Then a panel of nine experts in IS and/or engagement ranked the needs and barriers using a survey and met via a Zoom meeting to discuss and generate research opportunities and questions, with reference to the focus group outputs. Results: Respondents and experts concurred on the importance of engagement in IS. Focus group participants reported 28 needs and barriers under the themes of 1) need for best practice guidance related to engagement processes and outcomes and 2) structural barriers to integrating ES in IS. The expert panel prioritized six structural barriers and four barriers related to generating best practice guidance, with corresponding recommendations on research opportunities. Example research opportunities related to engagement processes included: define "successful" engagement in IS contexts; adapt engagement tools and best practices from other disciplines into IS. Example research opportunities related to outcomes included: assess the impact of engagement on IS outcomes; examine engagement practices that lead to optimal engaged research. Example research opportunities related to structural barriers included: leverage research evidence to create structural changes needed to expand support for engaged IS; examine factors that influence institutional buy-in of engagement in IS. Conclusions: Research needs exist that relate to engagement processes, outcomes, and structural barriers, even for scientists who value engaged research. Expert panelists recommended sequential and reinforcing research opportunities that implementation and engagement scientists can tackle together to advance both fields and health equity. Future work should assess insights from broader invested parties, particularly patients and community members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) same-day, or as soon as possible after HIV diagnosis is advised in guidelines worldwide. Especially during acute HIV infection (AHI), rapid ART start may be more urgent because of a higher risk of transmission or symptoms of acute retroviral syndrome. During this phase, rapid ART start may have additional benefits for viral reservoir size and host immunity. We explored perceptions of rapid ART start among participants of The Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV infection (NOVA study), who started ART rapidly after diagnosis of AHI. We conducted 20 in-depth qualitative interviews with NOVA study participants between October and December 2018. Data were analyzed thematically, using inductive and iterative coding techniques. Roughly half of the participants stated they felt well-informed about the importance of (rapid) ART. Starting ART rapidly was perceived positively by almost all participants, mostly because of the expected benefits on their health, and to prevent HIV transmission. Rapid ART start was seen as a way to cope with the diagnosis. However, a more negative perception was that rapid ART start confronted participants with their diagnosis, when they were still adjusting to a new situation. Our results show that among people diagnosed during AHI, rapid ART is well-accepted. These results should be encouraging to HIV care providers who encounter people with AHI in their clinical practice and to researchers who carry out cure-related studies, in which early ART is often included. The Clinical Trial Registration number is NCT05728996. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complicated genetic mechanisms and unpredictable health risks associated with the FMR1 premutation can result in challenges for patient education when the diagnosis is made in a newborn. From October 15, 2018, to December 10, 2021, North Carolina parents could obtain FMR1 premutation results about their newborns through a voluntary expanded newborn screening research study. The study provided confirmatory testing, parental testing, and genetic counseling. We developed web‐based educational materials to augment information about fragile X premutation conveyed by a genetic counselor. Many genetics education materials are developed for the lay population. However, relatively little research is published on how well individuals understand these materials. We conducted three rounds of iterative user testing interviews to help refine web‐based educational materials that support understanding and self‐paced learning. The participants included 25 parents with a 2‐year college degree or less and without a child identified with fragile X syndrome, premutation, or gray‐zone allele. Content analysis of interview transcripts resulted in iterative changes and ultimately saturation of findings. Across all rounds of interviews, there were two terms that were commonly misunderstood (fragile and carrier) and two terms that elicited initial misconceptions that were overcome by participants. Many also had difficulty understanding the relationship between fragile X premutation and fragile X syndrome as well as appreciating the implications of having a "fragile X gene." Website layout, formatting, and graphics also influenced comprehension. Despite iterative changes to the content, certain issues with understandability persisted. The findings support the need for user testing to identify misconceptions that may interfere with understanding and using genetic information. Here, we describe a process used to develop and refine evidence‐based, understandable parental resources on fragile X premutation. Additionally, we provide recommendations to address ongoing educational challenges and discuss the potential impact of bias on the part of expert content developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The South East Asia Research Collaboration in HIV (SEARCH) RV411 clinical trial in Thailand was a systematic investigation of analytic treatment interruption (ATI) in individuals diagnosed and treated since Fiebig stage I acute HIV infection. Here, we explore decision-making processes and perceptions of trial participation in a phase I trial that raised important ethical considerations, to identify potential areas of improvement in this relatively new field of HIV research. Similar considerations apply to other HIV phase I trials, especially those involving ATI, making this trial a model to identify challenges and opportunities in promoting informed choice. Methods: Using longitudinal semi-structured interviews and a validated questionnaire, we examined how decisions to join or decline the trial were made, whether there was evidence of decisional conflict, and reactions to the trial outcomes. We also explored contrasting views and experiences in this small trial cohort. We report analyses of data from these questionnaires and interviews, conducted from February through December of 2016 with the 14 SEARCH cohort participants who either joined (n = 8) or declined (n = 6) participation in RV411. Results: The eight participants and six decliners had low overall decisional conflict, which remained low over time. Decision making was more difficult for decliners than participants, at least initially. While all interviewees described being satisfied with their decisions, our study identified important negative consequences for a few individuals, including seroconversion, negative experiences with optional procedures and disappointment due to rapid viral rebound. Conclusions: Although our results reflect the experiences of a small group invited to join this trial, our overall finding of low decisional conflict even while some individuals reported negative experiences provides lessons for clinical trial investigators. We developed points-to-consider in helping participants make informed choices, to support participants during the trial and to support decliners in their decisions. Keywords: phase I clinical trials; HIV clinical trials; analytic treatment interruption; research ethics; informed consent; qualitative research, 1 | INTRODUCTION In 2009, the South East Asia Research Collaboration in HIV (SEARCH) at the Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre began diagnosing and treating individuals with acute HIV [...]

Early Check is a voluntary, large‐scale expanded newborn screening study in North Carolina that uses a self‐directed web‐based portal for return of normal individual research results (IRR). Little is known about participant perspectives in using web‐based portals to receive IRR. This study explored user attitudes and behaviors within the Early Check portal using three methods: (1) a feedback survey available to the consenting parent of participating infants (typically mothers), (2) semi‐structured interviews conducted with a subset of parents, and (3) Google Analytics. During an approximate 3‐year period, 17 936 newborns received normal IRR and there were 27 812 visits to the portal. Most surveyed parents reported viewing their baby's results (86%, 1410/1639). Parents largely found the portal easy to use to get results, and helpful in understanding the results. However, 10% of parents said it was difficult to find enough information to understand their baby's results. In Early Check, providing normal IRR via the portal made a large‐scale study practical, and was highly rated by most users. Return of normal IRR may be particularly amenable to web‐based portals, as the consequences to participants from not viewing results are modest, and the interpretation of a normal result is relatively straightforward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]