Characterizing Socioecological Markers of Differentiated HIV Risk Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Indonesia.

HIV prevention programs typically focus on changing individuals' risk behaviors, often without considering the socioecological factors that can moderate this risk. We characterized HIV risk among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Indonesia (n = 1314) using latent class analysis and used multinomial logistic regression to identify latent class relationships with demographics, social/sexual networks, and community-level socioecological indicators of HIV risk. Three HIV risk latent classes were identified-"Sexually Moderate" (n = 333), "Sexual Explorative" (n = 575), and "Navigating Complexities" (n = 406). Using "Sexually Moderate" (lowest risk) as the reference group, MSM in the "Sexual Explorative" class had additional social/sexual network-level risks (meeting partner(s) using both online and offline methods [RR = 3.8; 95%CI 1.7-8.6] or general social media and gay-specific online platforms [RR = 2.6; 95%CI 1.9-3.6] to meet partners, group sex [RR = 10.9; 95%CI 4.5-25.4], transactional sex [RR = 1.6; 95%CI 1.2-2.2]), and community-level risks (experiencing homosexual-related assaults [RR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.1-1.9]). MSM in the "Navigating Complexities" class had additional social/sexual network-level risks (low social support [RR = 1.6; 95%CI 1.1-2.5], less disclosure of their sexuality [RR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.0-1.9]) and community-level risks (higher internalized homonegativity scores [RR = 1.2; 95%CI 1.1-1.4], ever experiencing homosexual-related assaults [RR = 1.4:95%CI 1.1-1.9], less exposure to HIV/STI health promotion [RR = 0.7; 95%CI 0.5-0.9], attending STI-related services in the past 6 months [RR = 0.6; 95%CI 0.4-0.8]). Co-occurring individual and socioecological risk recommend holistic HIV prevention strategies tailored to consider the social and structural conditions of MSM in Indonesia are needed.

Patients' experience of accessing hepatitis C treatment through the Myanmar national hepatitis C treatment program: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 56.8 million people are living with hepatitis C and over three-quarters of those reside in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Barriers and enablers to hepatitis C care among people who inject drugs in high-income countries are well documented. However, there is scant literature describing the patient experience in LMICs. Understanding the barriers and enablers to care from the patient perspective is important to inform service refinements to improve accessibility and acceptability of hepatitis C care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the patient experience of accessing the national hepatitis C program at eight hospital sites in Myanmar. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four to five participants per site. Interview data were analysed thematically, with deductive codes from Levesque et al.'s (2013) Framework on patient-centred access to healthcare. RESULTS: Across the eight sites, 38 participants who had completed treatment were interviewed. Barriers to accessing care were mostly related to attending for care and included travel time and costs, multiple appointments, and wait times. Some participants described how they did not receive adequate information on hepatitis C, particularly its transmission routes, and on the level of cirrhosis of their liver and what they were required to do after treatment (i.e. reduce alcohol consumption, liver cirrhosis monitoring). Many participants commented that they had few or no opportunities to ask questions. Provision of treatment at no cost was essential to accessibility, and gratitude for free treatment led to high acceptability of care, even when accessing care was inconvenient. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of streamlining and decentralising health services, adequate human resourcing and training, and affordable treatment in maximising the accessibility and acceptability of hepatitis C care in LMICs. Findings from this work will inform future service delivery refinements for national program and other decentralised programs to improve accessibility and acceptability of hepatitis C care in Myanmar.

Evaluation of a Project Integrating Financial Incentives into a Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment Model of Care at a Sexual Health Service in Cairns, Australia, 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the effectiveness of novel models of care in community-based settings is critical to achieving hepatitis C elimination. We conducted an evaluation of a hepatitis C model of care with financial incentives that aimed to improve engagement across the hepatitis C cascade of care at a sexual health service in Cairns, Australia. METHODS: Between March 2020 and May 2021, financial incentives were embedded into an established person-centred hepatitis C model of care at Cairns Sexual Health Service. Clients of the Service who self-reported experiences of injecting drugs were offered an AUD 20 cash incentive for hepatitis C testing, treatment initiation, treatment completion, and test for cure. Descriptive statistics were used to describe retention in hepatitis C care in the incentivised model. They were compared to the standard of care offered in the 11 months prior to intervention. RESULTS: A total of 121 clients received financial incentives for hepatitis C testing (antibody or RNA). Twenty-eight clients were hepatitis C RNA positive, of whom 92% (24/28) commenced treatment, 75% (21/28) completed treatment, and 68% (19/28) achieved a sustained virological response (SVR). There were improvements in the proportion of clients diagnosed with hepatitis C who commenced treatment (86% vs. 75%), completed treatment (75% vs. 40%), and achieved SVR (68% vs. 17%) compared to the pre-intervention comparison period. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, financial incentives improved engagement and retention in hepatitis C care for people who inject drugs in a model of care that incorporated a person-centred and flexible approach.

Financial incentives to motivate treatment for hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals among Australian adults (The Methodical evaluation and Optimisation of Targeted IncentiVes for Accessing Treatment of Early-stage hepatitis C: MOTIVATE-C): protocol for a dose-response randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Untreated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can result in cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are highly effective and have few side effects compared to older interferon-based therapy. Despite the Australian government providing subsidised and unrestricted access to DAA therapy for chronic HCV infection, uptake has not been sufficient to meet the global target of eliminating HCV as a public health threat by 2030. This study will offer people with HCV financial incentives of varying values in order to evaluate its effect on initiation of DAA therapy in primary care. METHODS: Australian adults (18 years or older) who self-report as having current untreated HCV infection can register to participate via an automated SMS-based system. Following self-screening for eligibility, registrants are offered a financial incentive of randomised value (AUD 0 to 1000) to initiate DAA therapy. Study treatment navigators contact registrants who have consented to be contacted, to complete eligibility assessment, outline the study procedures (including the requirement for participants to consult a primary care provider), obtain consent, and finalise enrolment. Enrolled participants receive their offered incentive on provision of evidence of DAA therapy initiation within 12 weeks of registration (primary endpoint). Balanced randomisation is used across the incentive range until the first analysis, after which response-adaptive randomisation will be used to update the assignment probabilities. For the primary analysis, a Bayesian 4-parameter EMAX model will be used to estimate the dose-response curve and contrast treatment initiation at each incentive value against the control arm (AUD 0). Specified secondary statistical and economic analyses will evaluate the effect of incentives on adherence to DAA therapy, virological response, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This project seeks to gain an understanding of the dose-response relationship between incentive value and DAA treatment initiation, while maximising the number of people treated for HCV within fixed budget and time constraints. In doing so, we hope to offer policy-relevant recommendation(s) for the use of financial incentives as a pragmatic, efficient, and cost-effective approach to achieving elimination of HCV from Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR (anzctr.org.au), Identifier ACTRN12623000024640, Registered 11 January 2023 ( https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384923&isReview=true ).

What Lies Beneath? The Role of Community Engagement in Translating COVID-19 Research Findings to Policy-Makers.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement is key to developing local and context-specific strategies for the prevention and control of COVID-19. However, expedited research design and approval in the early days of the pandemic may have limited the opportunities for community members to influence pandemic-related research. In this study, we sought to understand how a Community Engagement Group (CEG) could impact a large longitudinal COVID-19 research project (Optimise), when involved solely in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of the research. METHODS: Seven community members were recruited for the CEG, representing a diverse range of groups. Each month, Optimise data of topical importance were compiled into a draft report. The CEG discussed the draft report at their monthly meeting and members' contributions were incorporated into the final report for distribution to policy-makers. In this study, a document analysis was undertaken of ten consecutive reports produced between February and November 2021. Each report was compared pre- and post- the inclusion of CEG contributions, which were then analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Community engagement in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of Optimise had positive impacts on reports for policy-makers, including grounding the empirical findings in broader community perspectives, identifying policy issues affecting different groups and contributing unique insights beyond the empirical findings. Overall, the CEG contributions demonstrated the complexity of lived experience lying beneath the empirical data. CONCLUSION: Community engagement in the translation of the Optimise findings resulted in research reports to policy-makers that were reflective of a broader range of community perspectives, and that provided potential solutions to emerging policy issues related to COVID-19. This study adds to the evidence base about the impact of community engagement in the later interpretation and knowledge translation phases of research, particularly in the context of reporting to policy-makers during a public health emergency.

Point-of-care HCV RNA testing improves hepatitis C testing rates and allows rapid treatment initiation among people who inject drugs attending a medically supervised injecting facility.

BACKGROUND: To achieve hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination targets, simplified care engaging people who inject drugs is required. We evaluated whether fingerstick HCV RNA point-of-care testing (PoCT) increased the proportion of clients attending a supervised injecting facility who were tested for hepatitis C. METHODS: Prospective single-arm study with recruitment between 9 November 2020 and 28 January 2021 and follow-up to 31 July 2021. Clients attending the supervised injecting facility were offered HCV RNA testing using the Xpert® HCV Viral Load Fingerstick (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) PoCT. Participants with a positive HCV RNA test were prescribed direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of clients who engaged in HCV RNA PoCT, compared to a historical comparator group when venepuncture-based hepatitis C testing was standard of care. RESULTS: Among 1618 clients who attended the supervised injecting facility during the study period, 228 (14%) engaged in PoCT. This was significantly higher than that observed in the historical comparator group (61/1,775, 3%; p < 0.001). Sixty-five (28%) participants were HCV RNA positive, with 40/65 (62%) receiving their result on the same day as testing. Sixty-one (94%) HCV RNA positive participants were commenced on DAA therapy; 14/61 (23%) started treatment on the same day as diagnosis. There was no difference in the proportion of HCV RNA positive participants commenced on treatment with DAA therapy when compared to the historical comparator group (61/65, 94% vs 22/26, 85%; p = 0.153). However, the median time to treatment initiation was significantly shorter in the PoCT cohort (2 days (IQR 1-20) vs 41 days (IQR 22-76), p < 0.001). Among participants who commenced treatment and had complete follow-up data available, 27/36 (75%) achieved hepatitis C cure. CONCLUSIONS: HCV RNA PoCT led to a significantly higher proportion of clients attending a supervised injecting facility engaging in hepatitis C testing, whilst also reducing the time to treatment initiation.

Same-visit hepatitis C testing and treatment to accelerate cure among people who inject drugs (the QuickStart Study): a cluster randomised cross-over trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite universal access to government-funded direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in 2016, the rate of hepatitis C treatment uptake in Australia has declined substantially. Most hepatitis C is related to injecting drug use; reducing the hepatitis C burden among people who inject drugs (PWID) is, therefore, paramount to reach hepatitis C elimination targets. Increasing DAA uptake by PWID is important for interrupting transmission and reducing incidence, as well as reducing morbidity and mortality and improving quality of life of PWID and meeting Australia's hepatitis C elimination targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised cross-over trial will be conducted with three intervention arms and a control arm. Arm A will receive rapid hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody testing; arm B will receive rapid HCV antibody and rapid RNA testing; arm C will receive rapid HCV antibody testing and same-day treatment initiation for HCV antibody-positive participants; the control arm will receive standard of care. The primary outcomes will be (a) the proportion of participants with HCV commencing treatment and (b) the proportion of participants with HCV achieving cure. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis with mixed-effects logistic regression models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Alfred Ethics Committee (number HREC/64731/Alfred-2020-217547). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Reportable adverse events will be reported to the reviewing ethics committee. The findings will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05016609. TRIAL PROGRESSION: The study commenced recruitment on 9 March 2022 and is expected to complete recruitment in December 2024.

Priority populations' experiences of isolation, quarantine and distancing for COVID-19: protocol for a longitudinal cohort study (Optimise Study).

INTRODUCTION: Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people's lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05323799.