Active-offer PrEP for HIV prevention: control, discipline, and public health nursing practice

How Black and Latino young men who have sex with men in the United States experience and engage with eligibility criteria and recruitment practices: implications for the sustainability of community-based research

Research recruitment, eligibility, and who chooses to participate shape the resulting data and knowledge, which together inform interventions, treatment, and programming. Patterns of research participation are particularly salient at this moment given emerging biomedical prevention paradigms. This paper explores the perspectives of Black and Latino young men who have sex with men (BL-YMSM) regarding research recruitment and eligibility criteria, how their experiences influence willingness to enroll in a given study, and implications for the veracity and representativeness of resulting data. We examine inclusion and recruitment as a complex assemblage, which should not be reduced to its parts. From April-July 2018, we conducted in-depth interviews with 30 BL-YMSM, ages 18-29, in New York City. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Black and Latino YMSM's responses unveiled tensions between researchers', recruiters', and participants' expectations, particularly regarding eligibility criteria (e.g., age, sex frequency), assumptions about 'risky behaviors,' and the 'target' community. Men preferred peer-to-peer recruitment, noting that most approaches miss key population segments. Findings highlight the need to critically examine the selected 'target' community, who sees themselves as participants, and implications for data comprehensiveness and veracity. Study eligibility criteria and recruitment approaches are methodological issues that shape knowledge production and the policies and programs deployed into communities. These findings can inform how future research studies frame recruitment and eligibility in order to better meet the needs of participants and ensure future engagement.

Ambivalence and the biopolitics of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation

Ambivalence, the vacillation between conflicting feelings and thoughts, is a key characteristic of scientific knowledge production and emergent biomedical technology. Drawing from sociological theory on ambivalence, we have examined three areas of debate surrounding the early implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, for gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men in Canada, including epistemology and praxis, clinical and epidemiological implications, and sexual politics. These debates are not focused on the science or efficacy of PrEP to prevent HIV, but rather represent contradictory feelings and opinions about the biopolitics of PrEP and health inequities. Emphasizing how scientists and health practitioners may feel conflicted about the biopolitics of novel biomedical technologies opens up opportunities to consider how a scientific field is or is not adequately advancing issues of equity. Scientists ignoring their ambivalence over the state of their research field may be deemed necessary to achieve a specific implementation goal, but this emotion management work can lead to alienation. We argue that recognizing the emotional dimensions of doing HIV research is not a distraction from "real" science, but can instead be a reflexive site to develop pertinent lines of inquiry better suited at addressing health inequities.