艾滋病毒感染者对在英国诊所和社区环境中实施长效卡博替拉韦加利匹韦林的看法:反性别歧视、反种族主义、反年龄歧视 ILANA 研究的结果。

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Chloe Orkin, Rosalie Hayes, Joanne Haviland, Yuk Lam Wong, Kyle Ring, Vanessa Apea, Bakita Kasadha, Emily Clarke, Ruth Byrne, Julie Fox, Tristan J Barber, Amanda Clarke, Sara Paparini
{"title":"艾滋病毒感染者对在英国诊所和社区环境中实施长效卡博替拉韦加利匹韦林的看法:反性别歧视、反种族主义、反年龄歧视 ILANA 研究的结果。","authors":"Chloe Orkin, Rosalie Hayes, Joanne Haviland, Yuk Lam Wong, Kyle Ring, Vanessa Apea, Bakita Kasadha, Emily Clarke, Ruth Byrne, Julie Fox, Tristan J Barber, Amanda Clarke, Sara Paparini","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciae523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The equity-focused ILANA study evaluated feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness of delivering on-label two-monthly cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB+RPV) injections for HIV-1 therapy in clinics and community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at six UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (months 1-6), and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (months 6-12). Surveys were completed at baseline, M4 and M12 using validated measures for feasibility (FIM), acceptability (AIM), and appropriateness (IAM). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants agreeing that the injection and community setting were feasible (FIM>4) at M12. Fourteen participants completed interviews at baseline and M12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n=3), HIV support organisations (n=2), community clinic (n=1). Of 114 participants,54% were female, 70% racially minoritised and 40% aged >50. 27/114 chose to receive injections in community settings. FIM/AIM/IAM scores at M12 were high for the injection (79.0-87.4%) and lower for the community setting (44.2-47.4%) overall. Subgroup analyses indicated differences in scores by gender and ethnicity. Among those who attended the community, FIM/AIM/IAM scores for the community setting at M12 were high (73.1-80.8%). Concerns about stigma, inconvenience, and losing access to trusted clinicians negatively influenced perceptions of receiving injections at community settings, amongst other factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CAB+RPV injections were considered highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, however few chose community delivery. Those that chose community delivery found it highly acceptable and feasible. Further exploration of CAB+RPV delivery in alternative community sites not offered (e.g. primary care or pharmacies) is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives of people with HIV on implementing long acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in clinics and community settings in the UK: results from the anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-ageist ILANA study.\",\"authors\":\"Chloe Orkin, Rosalie Hayes, Joanne Haviland, Yuk Lam Wong, Kyle Ring, Vanessa Apea, Bakita Kasadha, Emily Clarke, Ruth Byrne, Julie Fox, Tristan J Barber, Amanda Clarke, Sara Paparini\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciae523\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The equity-focused ILANA study evaluated feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness of delivering on-label two-monthly cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB+RPV) injections for HIV-1 therapy in clinics and community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at six UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (months 1-6), and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (months 6-12). Surveys were completed at baseline, M4 and M12 using validated measures for feasibility (FIM), acceptability (AIM), and appropriateness (IAM). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants agreeing that the injection and community setting were feasible (FIM>4) at M12. Fourteen participants completed interviews at baseline and M12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n=3), HIV support organisations (n=2), community clinic (n=1). Of 114 participants,54% were female, 70% racially minoritised and 40% aged >50. 27/114 chose to receive injections in community settings. FIM/AIM/IAM scores at M12 were high for the injection (79.0-87.4%) and lower for the community setting (44.2-47.4%) overall. Subgroup analyses indicated differences in scores by gender and ethnicity. Among those who attended the community, FIM/AIM/IAM scores for the community setting at M12 were high (73.1-80.8%). Concerns about stigma, inconvenience, and losing access to trusted clinicians negatively influenced perceptions of receiving injections at community settings, amongst other factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CAB+RPV injections were considered highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, however few chose community delivery. Those that chose community delivery found it highly acceptable and feasible. Further exploration of CAB+RPV delivery in alternative community sites not offered (e.g. primary care or pharmacies) is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae523\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae523","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:以公平为重点的 ILANA 研究评估了在标签上提供两个月卡博特韦和利匹韦林(CAB+RPV)的可行性、可接受性和适当性:以公平为重点的ILANA研究评估了在诊所和社区环境中提供标签上的两个月一次的卡博替拉韦和利匹韦林(CAB+RPV)注射治疗HIV-1的可行性、可接受性和适宜性:这项研究要求进行全面招募,于 2022 年 5 月至 12 月在英国的六个地点进行。注射在诊所进行(第 1-6 个月),根据患者选择在诊所或社区进行(第 6-12 个月)。在基线期、M4 期和 M12 期,使用经过验证的可行性(FIM)、可接受性(AIM)和适当性(IAM)测量方法完成调查。主要终点:在 M12 时,同意注射和社区环境可行(FIM>4)的参与者比例。14 名参与者完成了基线和 M12 期的访谈:调查点提供的社区环境包括:家访(3 人)、艾滋病支持组织(2 人)、社区诊所(1 人)。在 114 名参与者中,54% 为女性,70% 为少数民族,40% 年龄在 50 岁以上。27/114 人选择在社区环境中接受注射。在 M12 期,注射的 FIM/AIM/IAM 得分较高(79.0-87.4%),而社区环境的总体得分较低(44.2-47.4%)。分组分析表明,不同性别和种族的得分存在差异。在参加社区活动的患者中,M12 时社区环境的 FIM/AIM/IAM 得分较高(73.1-80.8%)。除其他因素外,对耻辱感、不便和失去可信赖的临床医生的担忧对在社区接受注射的看法产生了负面影响:人们认为 CAB+RPV 注射非常可行、可接受且合适,但选择社区注射的人很少。选择社区注射的人则认为其可接受性和可行性很高。有必要进一步探讨在未提供的其他社区场所(如初级保健或药房)进行 CAB+RPV 注射的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perspectives of people with HIV on implementing long acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in clinics and community settings in the UK: results from the anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-ageist ILANA study.

Introduction: The equity-focused ILANA study evaluated feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness of delivering on-label two-monthly cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB+RPV) injections for HIV-1 therapy in clinics and community settings.

Methods: The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at six UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (months 1-6), and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (months 6-12). Surveys were completed at baseline, M4 and M12 using validated measures for feasibility (FIM), acceptability (AIM), and appropriateness (IAM). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants agreeing that the injection and community setting were feasible (FIM>4) at M12. Fourteen participants completed interviews at baseline and M12.

Results: Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n=3), HIV support organisations (n=2), community clinic (n=1). Of 114 participants,54% were female, 70% racially minoritised and 40% aged >50. 27/114 chose to receive injections in community settings. FIM/AIM/IAM scores at M12 were high for the injection (79.0-87.4%) and lower for the community setting (44.2-47.4%) overall. Subgroup analyses indicated differences in scores by gender and ethnicity. Among those who attended the community, FIM/AIM/IAM scores for the community setting at M12 were high (73.1-80.8%). Concerns about stigma, inconvenience, and losing access to trusted clinicians negatively influenced perceptions of receiving injections at community settings, amongst other factors.

Conclusion: CAB+RPV injections were considered highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, however few chose community delivery. Those that chose community delivery found it highly acceptable and feasible. Further exploration of CAB+RPV delivery in alternative community sites not offered (e.g. primary care or pharmacies) is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信