Disseminating complex primary outcome results from a community-randomised trial to Zambian communities: lessons learned using a community dialogue approach in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.

The HPTN 071 (PopART) trial of universal HIV testing and treatment to reduce HIV incidence was conducted in nine communities in South Africa and 12 in Zambia. The trial's primary outcome results were complicated to explain. Dissemination of these complicated results in participating communities in Zambia was done using a community dialogue approach. The approach, which involved interactive activities and a gradual and systematic approach to discussion of results in each community, facilitated respect and inclusion of participants in the dissemination process. The use of local language, pictures, images, and familiar analogies enhanced comprehension of the findings and created a two-way communication process between researchers and participants. The dialogue approach enabled both groups to use community perspectives, lived experiences, and local socio-structural features to interpret the trial results. Further, community members reflected on what the results meant to them individually and collectively. Although this community dialogue was both productive and appreciated, making this community interpretation apparent across disciplines in key quantitative scientific outputs remained a challenge.

How 'place' matters for addressing the HIV epidemic: evidence from the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised controlled trial in Zambia and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: In a cluster-randomised trial (CRT) of combination HIV prevention (HPTN 071 (PopART)) in 12 Zambian communities and nine South African communities, carried out from 2012 to 2018, the intervention arm A that offered HIV treatment irrespective of CD4 count did not have a significant impact on population level HIV incidence. Intervention arm B, where HIV incidence was reduced by 30%, followed national guidelines that mid trial (2016) changed from starting HIV treatment according to a CD4 threshold of 500 to universal treatment. Using social science data on the 21 communities, we consider how place (community context) might have influenced the primary outcome result. METHODS: A social science component documented longitudinally the context of trial communities. Data were collected through rapid qualitative assessment, interviews, group discussions and observations. There were a total of 1547 participants and 1127 observations. Using these data, literature and a series of qualitative analysis steps, we identified key community characteristics of relevance to HIV and triangulated these with HIV community level incidence. RESULTS: Two interdependent social factors were relevant to communities' capability to manage HIV: stability/instability and responsiveness/resistance. Key components of stability were social cohesion; limited social change; a vibrant local economy; better health, education and recreational services; strong institutional presence; established middle-class residents; predictable mobility; and less poverty and crime. Key components of responsiveness were community leadership being open to change, stronger history of HIV initiatives, willingness to take up HIV services, less HIV-related stigma and a supported and enterprising youth population. There was a clear pattern of social factors across arms. Intervention arm A communities were notably more resistant and unstable. Intervention arm B communities were overall more responsive and stable. CONCLUSIONS: In the specific case of the dissonant primary outcome results from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, the chance allocation of less stable, less responsive communities to arm A compared to arm B may explain some of the apparently smaller impact of the intervention in arm A. Stability and responsiveness appear to be two key social factors that may be relevant to secular trends in HIV incidence. We advocate for a systematic approach, using these factors as a framework, to community context in CRTs and monitoring HIV prevention efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01900977 . Registered on July 17, 2013.

Value and Limitations of Broad Brush Surveys Used in Community-Randomized Trials in Southern Africa.

We describe and reflect on a rapid qualitative survey approach called "Broad Brush Survey" (BBS) used in six community-randomized trials (CRTs)/studies in Zambia and South Africa (2004-2018) to document, compare, classify, and communicate community features systematically for public health and multidisciplinary research ends. BBS is based on a set sequence of participatory qualitative methods and fieldwork carried out prior to a CRT intervention and/or research by social scientists to generate rapid community profiles using four key indicators: physical features, social organization, networks, and community narratives. Profiling makes apparent similarities and differences, enabling comparison across communities and can be facilitated by an ideal model of open-closed systems. Findings have provided practical outputs (e.g., community profiles) and academic opportunities (e.g., community typologies). The BBS approach enables complex social landscapes to be incorporated in CRTs. This method has proven to be useful, adaptable and to have multidisciplinary appeal.

Spinning plates: livelihood mobility, household responsibility and anti-retroviral treatment in an urban Zambian community during the HPTN 071 (PopART) study.

INTRODUCTION: Qualitative data are lacking on the impact of mobility among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and their decision-making around anti-retroviral treatment (ART). We describe challenges of juggling household responsibility, livelihood mobility and HIV management for six PLHIV in urban Zambia. METHODS: Six PLHIV (three men and three women, aged 21 to 44) were recruited from different geographic zones in one urban community drawn from a qualitative cohort in a social science component of a cluster-randomized trial (HPTN071 PopART). Participants were on ART (n = 2), not on ART (n = 2) and had started and stopped ART (n = 2). At least two in-depth interviews and participant observations, and three drop-in household visits with each were carried out between February and August 2017. Themed and comparative analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The six participants relied on the informal economy to meet basic household needs. Routine livelihood mobility, either within the community and to a nearby town centre, or further afield for longer periods of time, was essential to get by. Although aware of ART benefits, only one of the six participants managed to successfully access and sustain treatment. The other five struggled to find time to access ART alongside other priorities, routine mobility and when daily routines were more chaotic. Difficulty in accessing ART was exacerbated by local health facility factors (congestion, a culture of reprimanding PLHIV who miss appointments, sporadic rationed drug supply), stigma and more limited social capital. CONCLUSIONS: Using a time-space framework illustrated how household responsibility, livelihood mobility and HIV management every day were like spinning plates, each liable to topple and demanding constant attention. If universal lifelong ART is to be delivered, the current service model needs to adjust the limited time that some PLHIV have to access ART because of household responsibilities and the need to earn a living moving around, often away from home. Practical strategies that could facilitate ART access in the context of livelihood mobility include challenging the practice of reprimand, improving drug supply, having ART services more widely distributed, mapped and available at night and weekends, and an effective centralized client health information system.