Risks and benefits of engaging youth living with HIV in research: perspectives from Kenyan Youth, caregivers, and subject matter experts.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Emma Gillette, Winstone Nyandiko, Ashley Chory, Michael Scanlon, Josephine Aluoch, Hillary Koros, Celestine Ashimosi, Whitney Biegon, Dennis Munyoro, Janet Lidweye, Jack Nyagaya, Allison DeLong, Rami Kantor, Rachel Vreeman, Violet Naanyu
{"title":"Risks and benefits of engaging youth living with HIV in research: perspectives from Kenyan Youth, caregivers, and subject matter experts.","authors":"Emma Gillette, Winstone Nyandiko, Ashley Chory, Michael Scanlon, Josephine Aluoch, Hillary Koros, Celestine Ashimosi, Whitney Biegon, Dennis Munyoro, Janet Lidweye, Jack Nyagaya, Allison DeLong, Rami Kantor, Rachel Vreeman, Violet Naanyu","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01225-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Involving children and adolescents (youth) living with HIV (YLWH) in research is critical for developing appropriate HIV care services and interventions. However, this vulnerable population may not adequately weigh risks against benefits when participating in research, forming an ethical concern, yet little is known about how YLWH perceive these risks and benefits. To inform research-related policies and procedures, we sought perspectives of Kenyan YLWH, their caregivers and subject matter experts (SMEs) on risks and benefits of participation in research in a setting with a high burden of youth HIV infection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative inquiry on identifying, enrolling, and protecting YLWH (age 10-24 years) in research using semi-structured interviews with YLWH involved in research, their caregivers, YLWH with no prior research experience, and other SMEs at the AMPATH care and research sites in western Kenya. Transcripts were thematically analyzed and emerging themes derived to characterize perspectives of each group on risks and benefits of engaging YLWH in research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interviews were conducted with 40 YLWH (50% female; median age 17.5 years), 20 caregivers (70% female), and 39 SMEs [healthcare providers (N = 10), community leaders (N = 10) community advisory board members (N = 4), IRB experts (N = 5), clinical researchers (N = 6), social science researchers (N = 4) and laboratory experts (N = 1).] Participants in all groups identified accidental disclosure of HIV status, stigma and discrimination, risks of blood draws, mental health effects, and coercion due to study compensation as risks of research involvement. Benefits fell into 5 categories: clinical, informational, personal, future and community or household benefits. Benefits included access to health care, learning about HIV, gaining hope and community, improving HIV care, and reducing stigma. All participant groups largely held similar views; however, caregivers were the only group to identify misuse of study compensation as a risk, and YLWH less frequently cited clinical benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that participants commonly cite indirect risks and benefits of research participation, yet these are often excluded from institutional guidelines for consent documentation. Researchers should consider including indirect risks and benefits, such as the risk of stigma or the benefit of gaining knowledge and community, to study documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12083134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01225-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Involving children and adolescents (youth) living with HIV (YLWH) in research is critical for developing appropriate HIV care services and interventions. However, this vulnerable population may not adequately weigh risks against benefits when participating in research, forming an ethical concern, yet little is known about how YLWH perceive these risks and benefits. To inform research-related policies and procedures, we sought perspectives of Kenyan YLWH, their caregivers and subject matter experts (SMEs) on risks and benefits of participation in research in a setting with a high burden of youth HIV infection.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative inquiry on identifying, enrolling, and protecting YLWH (age 10-24 years) in research using semi-structured interviews with YLWH involved in research, their caregivers, YLWH with no prior research experience, and other SMEs at the AMPATH care and research sites in western Kenya. Transcripts were thematically analyzed and emerging themes derived to characterize perspectives of each group on risks and benefits of engaging YLWH in research.

Results: Interviews were conducted with 40 YLWH (50% female; median age 17.5 years), 20 caregivers (70% female), and 39 SMEs [healthcare providers (N = 10), community leaders (N = 10) community advisory board members (N = 4), IRB experts (N = 5), clinical researchers (N = 6), social science researchers (N = 4) and laboratory experts (N = 1).] Participants in all groups identified accidental disclosure of HIV status, stigma and discrimination, risks of blood draws, mental health effects, and coercion due to study compensation as risks of research involvement. Benefits fell into 5 categories: clinical, informational, personal, future and community or household benefits. Benefits included access to health care, learning about HIV, gaining hope and community, improving HIV care, and reducing stigma. All participant groups largely held similar views; however, caregivers were the only group to identify misuse of study compensation as a risk, and YLWH less frequently cited clinical benefits.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that participants commonly cite indirect risks and benefits of research participation, yet these are often excluded from institutional guidelines for consent documentation. Researchers should consider including indirect risks and benefits, such as the risk of stigma or the benefit of gaining knowledge and community, to study documentation.

让感染艾滋病毒的青年参与研究的风险和益处:来自肯尼亚青年、护理人员和主题专家的观点。
背景:将感染艾滋病毒的儿童和青少年(YLWH)纳入研究对于制定适当的艾滋病毒护理服务和干预措施至关重要。然而,这些弱势群体在参与研究时可能无法充分权衡风险与收益,从而形成伦理问题,然而,对于YLWH如何看待这些风险和收益,我们知之甚少。为了向研究相关的政策和程序提供信息,我们寻求了肯尼亚青年妇女、她们的照顾者和主题专家(sme)对在青少年艾滋病毒感染高负担的环境中参与研究的风险和收益的观点。方法:我们在肯尼亚西部AMPATH护理和研究地点对参与研究的YLWH、他们的照顾者、之前没有研究经验的YLWH和其他中小企业进行了半结构化访谈,对研究中YLWH(10-24岁)的识别、登记和保护进行了定性调查。对转录本进行主题分析,并衍生出新兴主题,以描述每个组对参与研究的YLWH的风险和益处的观点。结果:对40名青年妇女进行了访谈(50%为女性;中位年龄17.5岁)、20名护理人员(70%为女性)和39名中小企业[医疗保健提供者(N = 10)、社区领导(N = 10)、社区顾问委员会成员(N = 4)、IRB专家(N = 5)、临床研究人员(N = 6)、社会科学研究人员(N = 4)和实验室专家(N = 1)]。所有组的参与者都认为参与研究的风险包括意外披露艾滋病毒状况、污名化和歧视、抽血风险、心理健康影响以及因研究补偿而受到的胁迫。福利分为5类:临床、信息、个人、未来和社区或家庭福利。福利包括获得保健、了解艾滋病毒、获得希望和社区、改善艾滋病毒护理和减少耻辱。所有参与团体的观点基本一致;然而,护理人员是唯一确定滥用研究补偿为风险的群体,而YLWH较少提及临床益处。结论:这些发现表明,参与者通常会引用参与研究的间接风险和收益,但这些通常被排除在机构同意文件的指导方针之外。研究人员应该考虑在研究文献时纳入间接风险和收益,例如污名化风险或获得知识和社区的收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信