Pandemic expertise: qualitative findings on the experiences of living with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This qualitative study explored the experiences of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the San Francisco Bay Area, United States, during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health restrictions at a safety net HIV clinic. Patients (N = 30) were recruited for Spanish/English language semi-structured interviews (n = 30), translated when necessary, and analyzed thematically. The recurring theme of "pandemic expertise" emerged from the data: skills and attitudes developed through living with HIV helped PLWH cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, including effective strategies for dealing with anxiety and depression; appreciation for life; and practical experience of changing behavior to protect their health. A subset did not consider living with HIV helped them adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic, with some describing their lives as chaotic due to housing issues and/or ongoing substance use. Overall, interviewees reported finding trustworthy health information that helped them follow COVID-19 prevention strategies. Although living with HIV is associated with a higher prevalence of mental health concerns, substance use, and stigma, these challenges can also contribute to increased self-efficacy, adaptation, and resilience. Addressing structural issues such as housing appears to be key to responding to both pandemics.

"Entre Nosotras:" a qualitative study of a peer-led PrEP project for transgender latinas.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains low among transgender people as compared to other subgroups, despite high rates of HIV acquisition. In California, Latinx people comprise 40% of the population and Latina transgender women experience some of the highest burden of HIV of any subgroup, indicating a critical need for appropriate services. With funding from the California HIV/AIDS Research Programs, this academic-community partnership developed, implemented, and evaluated a PrEP project that co-located HIV services with gender affirming care in a Federally Qualified Heath Center (FQHC). Trans and Latinx staff led intervention adaptation and activities. METHODS: This paper engages qualitative methods to describe how a PrEP demonstration project- Triunfo- successfully engaged Spanish-speaking transgender Latinas in services. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews with project participants and five interviews with providers and clinic staff. Interviews were conducted in Spanish or English. We conducted six months of ethnographic observation of intervention activities and recorded field notes. We conducted thematic analysis. RESULTS: Beneficial elements of the intervention centered around three intertwined themes: creating trusted space, providing comprehensive patient navigation, and offering social support "entre nosotras" ("between us women/girls"). The combination of these factors contributed to the intervention's success supporting participants to initiate and persist on PrEP, many of whom had previously never received healthcare. Participants shared past experiences with transphobia and concerns around discrimination in a healthcare setting. Developing trust proved foundational to making participants feel welcome and "en casa/ at home" in the healthcare setting, which began from the moment participants entered the clinic and continued throughout their interactions with staff and providers. A gender affirming, bilingual clinician and peer health educators (PHE) played a critical part in intervention development, participant recruitment, and patient navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Our research adds nuance to the existing literature on peer support services and navigation by profiling the multifaced roles that PHE served for participants. PHE proved instrumental to empowering participants to overcome structural and other barriers to healthcare, successfully engaging a group who previously avoided healthcare in clinical settings.

Implementation Science Protocol: evaluating evidence-informed interventions to improve care for people with HIV seen in Ryan White HIV/AIDS program settings.

In 2017, the Health Resources and Services Administration's HIV/AIDS Bureau funded an Evaluation Center (EC) and a Coordinating Center for Technical Assistance (CCTA) to oversee the rapid implementation of 11 evidence-informed interventions at 26 HIV care and treatment providers across the U.S. This initiative aims to address persistent gaps in HIV-related health outcomes emerging from social determinants of health that negatively impact access to and retention in care. The EC adapted the Conceptual Model of Implementation Research to develop a Hybrid Type III, multi-site mixed-methods evaluation, described in this paper. The results of the evaluation will describe strategies associated with uptake, implementation outcomes, as well as HIV-related health outcomes for clients engaged in the evidence-informed interventions. This approach will allow us to understand in detail the processes that sites undergo to implement these important intervention strategies for high priority populations.

A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program.

BACKGROUND: The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines recommend screening for HIV infection in all healthcare settings, including the emergency department (ED). In urban areas with a high background prevalence of HIV, the ED has become an increasingly important site for identifying HIV infection. However, this public health policy has been operationalized using different models. We sought to describe the development and implementation of HIV testing programs in three EDs, assess factors shaping the adoption and evolution of specific program elements, and identify barriers and facilitators to testing. METHODS: We performed a qualitative evaluation using in-depth interviews with fifteen 'key informants' involved in the development and implementation of HIV testing in three urban EDs serving sizable racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Testing program HIV prevalence ranged from 0.4% to 3.0%. RESULTS: Three testing models were identified, reflecting differences in the use of existing ED staff to offer and perform the test and disclose results. Factors influencing the adoption of a particular model included: whether program developers were ED providers, HIV providers, or both; whether programs took a targeted or non-targeted approach to patient selection; and the extent to which linkage to care was viewed as the responsibility of the ED. A common barrier was discomfort among ED providers about disclosing a positive HIV test result. Common facilitators were a commitment to underserved populations, the perception that testing was an opportunity to re-engage previously HIV-infected patients in care, and the support and resources offered by the medical setting for HIV-infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: ED HIV testing is occurring under a range of models that emerge from local realities and are tailored to institutional strengths to optimize implementation and overcome provider barriers.

Potential deterrent effect of name-based HIV infection surveillance.

To meet federal recommendations to collect case reports of HIV infection, California has adopted a non-name code system to conduct HIV surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate among HIV test takers the acceptability and preferences for the 3 major types of HIV infection reporting-name, name-to-code, and non-name code. Interviewer-administered exit surveys with spoken scripts and matching printed materials clearly outlining the 3 HIV reporting options were conducted among HIV test takers immediately following appointments for pretest HIV counseling and blood collection. The study enrolled 208 HIV test takers at 14 publicly funded HIV testing sites in 4 California counties (Los Angeles, Riverside, Fresno, and Santa Clara). Overall with respect to which would be the most acceptable system, 67% reported non-name code, 19% reported name-to-code, and 12% reported name-based HIV reporting (P < 0.0001). A second sample of 226 exit surveys taken 1 year following implementation of California's non-name code HIV infection reporting system continued to show a significant preference for non-name code HIV infection reporting. Significant independent predictors of a preference for coded HIV reporting in both the pre- and postimplementation period were men who have sex with men (odds ratio [OR] = 5.7, 95% CI: 1.2-26 in the preperiod) and having just taken an anonymous HIV test (OR = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.4-9.3, P = 0.009 preperiod). Were the state to adopt name-based HIV reporting, significantly fewer individuals report being likely in the next 12 months to have a confidential HIV test than report being likely to have an anonymous HIV test (51% likely confidential vs. 76% likely anonymous, P < 0.0001). This analysis documents strong support, among HIV test takers in California, for a non-name coded HIV reporting system and indicates a high probability of a shift away from confidential testing toward anonymous testing under a scenario of name-based reporting. This shift is of concern as confidential HIV testing is the basis of US HIV surveillance systems.