No abstract

ObjectivesBroad international guidelines and studies in the context of individual clinical trials highlight the centrality of community stakeholder engagement in conducting ethically rigorous HIV prevention trials. We explored and identified challenges and facilitators for community stakeholder engagement in biomedical HIV prevention trials in diverse global settings. Our aim was to assess and deepen the empirical foundation for priorities included in the GPP guidelines and to highlight challenges in implementation that may merit further attention in subsequent GPP iterations.MethodsFrom 2008–2012 we conducted an embedded, multiple case study centered in Thailand, India, South Africa and Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with respondents from different trial-related subsystems: civil society organization representatives, community advocates, service providers, clinical trialists/researchers, former trial participants, and key HIV risk populations. Interviews/focus groups were recorded, and coded using thematic content analysis. After intra-case analyses, we conducted cross-case analysis to contrast and synthesize themes and sub-themes across cases. Lastly, we applied the case study findings to explore and assess UNAIDS/AVAC GPP guidelines and the GPP Blueprint for Stakeholder Engagement.ResultsAcross settings, we identified three cross-cutting themes as essential to community stakeholder engagement: trial literacy, including lexicon challenges and misconceptions that imperil sound communication; mistrust due to historical exploitation; and participatory processes: engaging early; considering the breadth of “community”; and, developing appropriate stakeholder roles. Site-specific challenges arose in resource-limited settings and settings where trials were halted.ConclusionsThis multiple case study revealed common themes underlying community stakeholder engagement across four country settings that largely mirror GPP goals and the GPP Blueprint, as well as highlighting challenges in the implementation of important guidelines. GPP guidance documents could be strengthened through greater focus on: identifying and addressing the community-specific roots of mistrust and its impact on trial literacy activities; achieving and evaluating representativeness in community stakeholder groups; and addressing the impact of power and funding streams on meaningful engagement and independent decision-making.

Introduction: Young women in Southern Africa have extremely high HIV incidence rates necessitating the availability of female-controlled prevention methods. Understanding adolescent preference for seeking contraception would improve our understanding of acceptability, feasibility and adherence to similar modes of delivery for HIV prevention. Methods: UChoose was an open-label randomized crossover study over 32 weeks which aimed to evaluate the acceptability and preference for contraceptive options in healthy, HIV-uninfected, female adolescents aged 15 to 19 years, as a proxy for similar HIV prevention methods. Participants were assigned to a contraceptive method for a period of 16 weeks in the form of a bimonthly injectable contraceptive, monthly vaginal Nuvaring â or daily combined oral contraceptive (COC) and then asked to state their preference. At 16 weeks, participants crossed over to another contraceptive method, to ensure that all participants tried the Nuvaring â (least familiar modality) and additionally, either the injection or COC. Primary outcomes were contraceptive acceptability and preference. At the end of the 32 weeks they were also asked to imagine their preference for an HIV prevention modality. Secondary endpoints included changes in sexual behaviour, contraceptive adherence and preference for biomedical and behavioural HIV prevention methods. Results: Of the 180 participants screened, 130 were enrolled and randomized to the Nuvaring â (n = 45), injection (n = 45) or COC (n = 40). Significantly more Nuvaring â users (24/116; 20.7%) requested to change to another contraceptive option compared to injection (1/73; 1.4% p = 0.0002) and COC users (4/49; 8% p = 0.074). Of those that remained on the Nuvaring â , adherence was significantly higher than to COC (p < 0.0001). Significantly more injection users (77/80; 96.3%) thought this delivery mode was convenient to use compared to Nuvaring â (74/89; 83.1%; p = 0.0409) or COC (38/50; 76.0%; p = 0.0034). Overall, the preferred contraceptive choice was injection, followed by the ring and lastly the pill. Conclusions: Adherence to daily COC was difficult for adolescents in this cohort and the least favoured potential HIV prevention option. While some preferred vaginal ring use, these data suggest that long-acting injectables would be the preferred prevention method for adolescent girls and young women. This study highlights the need for additional options for HIV prevention in youth.

Background: Adolescents in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a high burden of HIV, increasing the importance of including adolescents in HIV research. Adolescence is a period of transition that introduces unique ethical challenges for HIV research. The aim of this paper is to describe the ethical-legal barriers to adolescent participation in HIV research studies and potential strategies for including adolescents in LMIC research studies.