Evaluation of the effect of human immunodeficiency virus-related structural interventions: the connect to protect project

Research Priorities to End the Adolescent HIV Epidemic in the United States: Viewpoint

Youth represent 21% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and transgender (GBT) youth, particularly those from communities of color, and youth who are homeless, incarcerated, in institutional settings, or engaging in transactional sex are most greatly impacted. Compared with adults, youth have lower levels of HIV serostatus awareness, uptake of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and adherence. Widespread availability of ART has revolutionized prevention and treatment for both youth at high risk for HIV acquisition and youth living with HIV, increasing the need to integrate behavioral interventions with biomedical strategies. The investigators of the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) completed a research prioritization process in 2019, focusing on research gaps to be addressed to effectively control HIV spread among American youth. The investigators prioritized research in the following areas: (1) innovative interventions for youth to increase screening, uptake, engagement, and retention in HIV prevention (eg, pre-exposure prophylaxis) and treatment services; (2) structural changes in health systems to facilitate routine delivery of HIV services; (3) biomedical strategies to increase ART impact, prevent HIV transmission, and cure HIV; (4) mobile technologies to reduce implementation costs and increase acceptability of HIV interventions; and (5) data-informed policies to reduce HIV-related disparities and increase support and services for GBT youth and youth living with HIV. ATN’s research priorities provide a roadmap for addressing the HIV epidemic among youth. To reach this goal, researchers, policy makers, and health care providers must work together to develop, test, and disseminate novel biobehavioral interventions for youth.

A systematic review of selected human rights programs to improve HIV-related outcomes from 2003 to 2015: what do we know?

Background

Repressive legal environments and widespread human rights violations act as structural impediments to efforts to engage key populations at risk of HIV infection in HIV prevention, care, and treatment efforts. The identification and scale-up of human rights programs and rights-based interventions that enable coverage of and retention in evidence-based HIV prevention and treatment approaches is crucial for halting the epidemic.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies that assessed the effectiveness of human rights interventions on improving HIV-related outcomes between 1/1/2003–28/3/2015 per PRISMA guidelines. Studies of any design that sought to evaluate an intervention falling into one of the following UNAIDS’ key human rights program areas were included: HIV-related legal services; monitoring and reforming laws, policies, and regulations; legal literacy programs; sensitization of lawmakers and law enforcement agents; and training for health care providers on human rights and medical ethics related to HIV.

Results

Of 31,861 peer-reviewed articles and reports identified, 23 were included in our review representing 15 different populations across 11 countries. Most studies (83%) reported a positive influence of human rights interventions on HIV-related outcomes. The majority incorporated two or more principles of the human rights-based approach, typically non-discrimination and accountability, and sought to influence two or more elements of the right to health, namely availability and acceptability. Outcome measures varied considerably, making comparisons between studies difficult.

Conclusion

Our review revealed encouraging evidence of human rights interventions enabling a comprehensive HIV response, yet critical gaps remain. The development of a research framework with standardized indicators is needed to advance the field. Promising interventions should be implemented on a larger scale and rigorously evaluated. Funding for methodologically sound evaluations of human rights interventions should match the demand for human rights-based and structural approaches to protect those most vulnerable from HIV infection.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-3692-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ensuring Community Participation During Program Planning: Lessons Learned During the Development of a HIV/STI Program for Young Sexual and Gender Minorities

HIV/STI incidence has shifted to a younger demographic, comprised disproportionately of gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and people of color. Recognizing the importance of community organizing and participatory engagement during the intervention planning process, we describe the steps taken to engage diverse constituents (e.g., youth and practitioners) during the development of a structural-level HIV/STI prevention and care initiative for young sexual and gender minorities in Southeast Michigan. Our multi-sector coalition (MFierce; Michigan Forward in Enhancing Research and Community Equity) utilized a series of community dialogues to identify, refine, and select programmatic strategies with the greatest potential. Evaluation data (N = 173) from the community dialogues highlighted constituents' overall satisfaction with our elicitation process. Using a case study format, we describe our community dialogue approach, illustrate how these dialogues strengthened our program development, and provide recommendations that may be used in future community-based program planning efforts.

Evaluating Structural Change Approaches to Health Promotion: An Exploratory Scoping Review of a Decade of U.S. Progress

Structural change approaches—also known as policy and environmental changes—are becoming increasingly common in health promotion, yet our understanding of how to evaluate them is still limited. An exploratory scoping review of the literature was conducted to understand approaches and methods used to evaluate structural change interventions in health promotion and public health literature. Two analysts—along with health sciences librarian consultation—searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed U.S.-based, English language studies published between 2005 and 2016. Data were extracted on the use of evaluation frameworks, study designs, duration of evaluations, measurement levels, and measurement types. Forty-five articles were included for the review. Notably, the majority (73%) of studies did not report application of a specific evaluation framework. Studies used a wide range of designs, including process evaluations, quasi- or nonexperimental designs, and purely descriptive approaches. In addition, 15.6% of studies only measured outcomes at the individual level. Last, 60% of studies combined more than one measurement type (e.g., site observation + focus groups) to evaluate interventions. Future directions for evaluating structural change approaches to health promotion include more widespread use and reporting of evaluation frameworks, developing validated tools that measure structural change, and shifting the focus to health-directed approaches, including an expanded consideration for evaluation designs that address health inequities.