Amsterdam 2015
Menu
AIDSImpact.com
Conference Details
Authors
International Committee
Plenary Speakers
Presenting Speakers
Programme
Sessions
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements
| Abstract #2217 - Evidence and interventions | ||||
|
Session: 30.5: Evidence and interventions (Oral poster discussion) on Thursday @ 13.30-14.30 in Poster room 1 Chaired by Tamsen Rochat, Sibylle Nider/i> Authors: Presenting Author: Prof Marie Preau - GRePS, Lyon 2 University, France |
||||
| Additional Authors: | ||||
| Aim: The latest progress in HIV medicine and research has reinforced the belief that HIV infection might be curable. recently launched the “Towards an HIV cure” initiative to promote multidisciplinary research for a safe, affordable and scalable cure. As part of the International AIDS Society initiative, “Towards an HIV cure”, a “Social Science” group is currently preparing surveys about the acceptability of HIV cure-related clinical (HCRC) trials to be conducted in several countries including France. The main goal of our survey was to collect data based on patients’ and healthcare professionals’ points of view about the HCRC trials and to identify the diverse motivations and barriers which may influence willingness to participate (WTP). Using data from this first phase, we will create guidelines to ensure that recruitment in these upcoming trials is ethical and patient-focused. | ||||
| Method / Issue: The French survey was recently conducted to collect information on the norms and beliefs related to clinical trials, especially trials without direct benefits in the current post-HAART context. To this end, a series of focus group discussions was performed on two populations PLWH and healthcare professionals who will be involved in the HCRC trials. Data were collected from 3 PLWH-only focus group meetings PLVIH (n=21) and 3 healthcare professional-only meetings (n=30). All the participants were chosen from three French Infectious Disease Units. | ||||
| Results / Comments: Four women and 17 men participated in the PLWH focus group sessions. Thirteen providers (prescribing doctors), 10 doctors and 7 caregivers (nurses, interns and care workers) participated in the sessions for healthcare professionals. An analysis of all six meetings identified three primary and often opposing acceptability ‘positions’ or ‘stances’, which developed over the course of each focus group meeting. The first position was strongly based on participants’ comparison of the trials with the pre-HAART trial era. C’est pas clair... The second position concerned the fact that the new strategies could undermine the progress made by previous work, not only from a clinical point of view, but also from the perspective of PLWH behaviours. One example of this could be couples’ revaluation of their previous decision to stop using condoms. The third position concerned both caregivers and PLWH and was strongly linked with the need "not to just leave it at that". This position reflects general HIV culture which not only accepts the risks of participating in new trials, but embraces innovation and pushes others to continue innovation. | ||||
| Discussion: The various topics discussed in the focus group meetings highlighted the profound importance of the individual’s personal history with HIV, echoed in the individual’s opinions regarding previous victories in the fight against infection, and also regarding a culture of innovation that tends to push everyone to participate in this type of trial. Besides the various ion criteria that would lead caregivers to propose HCRC trial participation, and lead PLWHIV to accept participation or not, individual HIV history appears to be a major factor when making decisions about HCRC trial participation. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||