Engaging Stigmatised Communities in Australia with Digital Health Systems: Towards Data Justice in Public Health

Mpox Illness Narratives: Stigmatising Care and Recovery During and After an Emergency Outbreak

In May 2022, a global outbreak of mpox (formerly monkeypox virus) affected thousands of mainly gay and bisexual men. Mpox is usually a time-limited illness that can involve fever, pain, and skin lesions, but may require hospitalisation. There is scant research into the firsthand experiences of people affected by mpox, including experiences of symptoms, healthcare, and recovery. This study considers the different illness narratives of people who experienced mpox in Australia in 2022. In-depth interviews and 6-month follow-up interviews were conducted with 16 people, including 13 people diagnosed with mpox and three close contacts. All participants were cisgender gay or bisexual men living in Australia. Participants' accounts described minor to severe periods of sickness, negative and stigmatising experiences engaging with healthcare, and some participants experienced long-term effects on their sexual well-being and complications from mpox. The emergency outbreak context meant that mpox was highly distressing, making it difficult to manage and producing varying forms of disruption to everyday life. Mpox was narrated as disruptive in different ways: as a minor interruption to holiday plans, a prolonged period of poor health, or a biographically disruptive event prompting a re-evaluation of sexual values and health. This analysis demonstrates that an unfamiliar emergent disease outbreak related to sexual practices and sociality can reconfigure personal life and sexual well-being, suggesting a need to focus on providing quality patient care in outbreaks of mpox and other infectious diseases.

Health policy counterpublics: Enacting collective resistances to US molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response programs

Health policies and the problems they constitute are deeply shaped by multiple publics. In this article we conceptualize health policy counterpublics: temporally bounded socio-political forms that aim to cultivate particular modes of conduct, generally to resist trajectories set by arms of the state. These counterpublics often emerge from existing social movements and involve varied forms of activism and advocacy. We examine a health policy counterpublic that has arisen in response to new forms of HIV public health surveillance by drawing on public documents and interview data from 2021 with 26 stakeholders who were critical of key policy developments. Since 2018, the national rollout of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs in the United States has produced sustained controversies among HIV stakeholders, including among organized networks of people living with HIV. This article focuses on how a health policy counterpublic formed around MHS/CDR and how constituents problematized the policy agenda set in motion by federal health agencies, including in relation to data ethics, the meaningful involvement of affected communities, informed consent, the digitization of health systems, and HIV criminalization. Although familiar problems in HIV policymaking, concerns about these issues have been reconfigured in response to the new sociotechnical milieu proffered by MHS/CDR, generating new critical positions aiming to remake public health. Critical attention to the scenes within which health policy controversies play out ought to consider how (counter)publics are made, how problems are constituted, and the broader social movement dynamics and activist resources drawn upon to contest and reimagine policymaking in public life.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders.

METHODS

In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues.

RESULTS

Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used.

CONCLUSIONS

MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

Communication and coordination of care for people living with HIV: a qualitative study of the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

There is growing consensus that primary health care (PHC) providers have an important role in providing holistic, preventative care for people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV). In regional Australia, HIV care is primarily delivered through specialist services, thus adequate coordination and communication between specialist and PHC professionals is crucial. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of the coordination of care and health care professional communication for PLHIV in regional Australia.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with PLHIV in a regional area of Australia were conducted in March to April 2022. Interviews were conducted via video conferencing, face-to-face, or via telephone call. Interviews were audio-recorded and manually transcribed. Transcripts were coded inductively and thematic analysis was conducted to explore perspectives on communication and coordination.

RESULTS

Thirteen participants were interviewed. Most participants were male, aged 50-70, were diagnosed with HIV more than ten years ago, and had been living in regional Australia long-term. Through qualitative analysis, themes emerged in the following areas: (1) Patient perception of care coordination; (2) Patient understanding of modality of communication; (3) Positive attitudes towards communication between healthcare professionals; and (4) Concerns for information sharing between healthcare professionals. Many participants highlighted lack of clarity around care coordination as a key issue in their healthcare, with some citing themselves as the primary care coordinator. Participants identified that coordination and communication between PHC professionals and specialist services are essential in the delivery of their health care, but some were hesitant for this to occur. Hesitancy was entrenched in some patients' distrust of healthcare due to previous experiences of confidentiality breaches and stigma.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies the need for clarity in coordination between health care professionals to deliver safe and effective HIV care, which may occur through care plans. Patient support for communication between healthcare providers may be strengthened by ensuring trust in the people and systems involved. Eliminating stigma in healthcare as well as building more trustworthy electronic-based communication technologies are essential components to trust-building between PLHIV and healthcare systems.

The future of translational medical humanities: bridging the data/narrative divide

This essay argues that emerging forms of translational work in the field of medical humanities offer valuable methods for engaging with communities outside of academic settings. The first section of the essay provides a synthetic overview of definitions and critical engagements with the concept of 'translation' in the context of medical humanities, a field that, in the wake of the COVID pandemic, can serve as an exemplar for other fields of the humanities. The second section explains the 'data/narrative' divide in medicine and health to demonstrate the need for new translational methodologies that can address this nexus of concern, particularly in collaboration with constituencies outside of academic settings. The third section maps out the sites and infrastructures where digital medical humanities is poised to make significant translational interventions. The final section of the essay considers data privacy and health ecology as conceptual frameworks that are necessary for bridging the data/narrative divide. Examples are drawn from the 'Translational Humanities for Public Health' website, which aggregates projects worldwide to demonstrate these emerging methodologies.

Beyond the challenge to research integrity: imposter participation in incentivised qualitative research and its impact on community engagement

Participant recruitment for qualitative research often offers incentives (honoraria; financial compensation) to increase participation and to recognise lived expertise and time involved in research. While not necessarily a new concern for survey and other quantitative based research, 'spam', 'bot', and other inauthentic forms of research participation has rarely been an apparent issue for qualitative research, given it often involves levels of interaction with potential participants prior to the conduct of in-depth interviews and other methods of data generation. This is no longer the case. A troubling new occurrence has meant that recruitment calls for qualitative research with incentives on public-facing social media have attracted 'imposter' expressions of interest and research participation. In this commentary, we explore this challenge that goes beyond research integrity. In particular, we consider the risks of employing strategies to screen for legitimate participants and the importance of building trust and maintaining community engagement.

The adoption and sustainability of digital therapeutics in justice systems: A pilot feasibility study

BACKGROUND

This study explored whether participants with substance use disorder (SUD) would adopt and use a smart-phone app with a cognitive behavioral therapy program, weekly Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) assessments, daily check-ins, tools to track sobriety and treatment, and other patient-centered resources. In addition, participants with SUD could access a social worker and peer support specialists.

METHODS

The study sought participants from two groups: those referred by a justice-related agency and participants who responded to outreach from the Addiction Policy Forum (APF). The Connections smart-phone app was offered to both groups. The study examined use of the app and social worker/peer recovery support services by participants who downloaded and used the app; those referred by a justice-related agency and those who self-referred through APF. The app provided primary data, including socio-demographics, referral status, dates of use, activities completed, and BAM scores.

RESULTS

The app was offered to 1973 participants, 40% of whom downloaded it. Three groups emerged from among the 350 who used the app: those who used only the cognitive behavioral aspects of the app, those who used only the recovery support services offered, and those who used both the app and recovery support services. Looking at the two referral groups, the justice-referred group preferred telehealth recovery support services with the social worker; the self-referred group used the app and the app plus the recovery support services equally. Scores on the BAM improved across time. Justice-referred participants' protective behaviors improved more than those of the self-referred participants while self-referred participants' risk behaviors improved more than those of justice-referred participants. Older participants were more likely to use the app, and to report fewer risky behaviors, as measured by the BAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a digital therapeutic appears to support recovery of participants with SUD although many clients need and want the integration of social worker-driven recovery support services. Basically, the app can be an extension to personal services, but many people with SUD (particularly during COVID-19) crave human interaction. It also appears that those who seek assistance on their own, rather than being referred by a justice-related agency, may be more likely to benefit from digital therapeutics such as the Connections app.