No abstract

Internet-based HIV interventions are increasingly common, although little focus has been on HIV-positive women. To understand the feasibility of using the Internet to deliver behavioral interventions to HIV-positive women, we sought to describe patterns of Internet use for general and health-related purposes and to explore differences between Internet-using and non-using women. From February 2014 to April 2014, 103 women were recruited at six community-based organizations in the Bronx, NY that provide services to HIV-positive persons. Women completed a 30-minute interview and answered a brief survey of socio-demographic factors, risk behavior and clinical characteristics. We performed χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare Internet users and non-users. Sixty-one percent of participants were current Internet users, most of whom used a personal electronic device (e.g., cellphone/smartphone) to access the Internet. While higher proportions of Internet users were passively engaged (e.g., signed up to receive email updates [42.9%] or watched an online video [58.7%] for health-related purposes), smaller proportions (12.7–15.9%) were involved in more interactive activities such as posting comments, questions, or information about health-related issues in an online discussion or a blog. A majority of Internet non-users (60.0%) expressed interest in going online. Lack of computer or Internet access (37.5%) and Internet navigation skills (37.5%) were the primary reasons for non-use. Compared with non-users, Internet users were more likely to be younger, to have higher socioeconomic status, and to report low health-related social support. Despite having a lower proportion of Internet users in our study than the general population, Internet-using women in our study had relatively high levels of online engagement and went online for both general and health-related purposes. However, Internet-based interventions targeting HIV-positive women will likely need to include providing computer and/or Internet access as well as training participants in how to navigate the Internet.

Background HIV-infected patients have high prevalence of chronic pain and opioid use, making HIV care a critical setting for improving the safety of opioid prescribing. Little is known about HIV treatment providers’ perspectives about opioid prescribing to patients with chronic pain. Methods We administered a questionnaire and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 HIV treatment providers (infectious disease specialists, general internists, family practitioners, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in Bronx, NY. Open-ended interview questions focused on providers’ experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about opioid prescribing and about use of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices (conservative prescribing, and monitoring for and responding to misuse). Transcripts were thematically analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Results Eighteen HIV treatment providers included 13 physicians, 4 nurse practitioners, and 3 physician assistants. They were 62% female, 56% white, and practiced as HIV providers for a mean of 14.6 years. Most reported always or almost always using opioid treatment agreements (56%) and urine drug testing (61%) with their patients on long-term opioid therapy. HIV treatment providers tended to view opioid prescribing for chronic pain within the “HIV paradigm,” a set of priorities and principles defined by three key themes: 1) primacy of HIV goals, 2) familiarity with substance use, and 3) the clinician as ally. The HIV paradigm sometimes supported, and sometimes conflicted with guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. For HIV treatment providers, perceived alignment with the HIV paradigm determined whether and how guideline-based opioid prescribing practices were adopted. For example, the primacy of HIV goals superseded conservative opioid prescribing when providers prescribed opioids with the goal of retaining patients in HIV care. Conclusion Our findings highlight unique factors in HIV care that influence adoption of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. These factors should be considered in future research and initiatives to address opioid prescribing in HIV care.

BackgroundCommunity advisory boards (CAB) are proposed as one mechanism to carry out successful community based participatory research (CBPR), but the presence of CABs may be insufficient to optimize academic-community partnerships.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with minority members of a CAB partnered with a HIV/AIDS research center and identified three themes.ResultsFirst, lack of trust in researchers included two subthemes: researchers’ lacked respect for community-based organizations’ (CBO’s) interests and paid inadequate attention to building trust. Second, power imbalance included three subthemes: CAB members felt like inferior “token” members, felt that a lack of communication led to disempowerment, and held preconceived beliefs of researchers that led to perceived power imbalance. Third, CAB members suggested best practices, including using collaborations to build trust, actively allocating power, and sharing tangible research benefits with CBOs.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that CABs must be founded on trust and instilled with power to meet the tenets of CBPR.