Moving toward equity: fostering transdisciplinary research between the social and behavioral sciences and implementation science to end the HIV epidemic

Navigating grey areas in HIV and mental health implementation science

INTRODUCTION

Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high-impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, "grey areas," or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research.

DISCUSSION

A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH-funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH-related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence-based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high-impact HIV/MH implementation research.

A Systematic Review of Implementation Research on Determinants and Strategies of Effective HIV Interventions for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of HIV cases in the United States despite representing ∼5% of the adult population. Delivery and use of existing and highly effective HIV prevention and treatment strategies remain suboptimal among MSM. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically review implementation determinants and strategies of HIV-related health interventions using implementation science frameworks. Research on implementation barriers has focused predominantly on characteristics of individual recipients (e.g., ethnicity, age, drug use) and less so on deliverers (e.g., nurses, physicians), with little focus on system-level factors. Similarly, most strategies target recipients to influence their uptake and adherence, rather than improving and supporting implementation systems. HIV implementation research is burgeoning; future research is needed to broaden the examination of barriers at the provider and system levels, as well as expand knowledge on how to match strategies to barriers-particularly to address stigma. Collaboration and coordination among federal, state, and local public health agencies; community-based organizations; health care providers; and scientists are important for successful implementation of HIV-related health innovations.

Advancing healthcare equity through dissemination and implementation science

OBJECTIVE

To provide guiding principles and recommendations for how approaches from the field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science can advance healthcare equity.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This article, part of a special issue sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is based on an outline drafted to support proceedings of the 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit and further revised to reflect input from Summit attendees.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review of the current and potential applications of D&I approaches for understanding and advancing healthcare equity, followed by discussion and feedback with Summit attendees.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified major themes in narrative and systematic reviews related to D&I science, healthcare equity, and their intersections. Based on our expertise, and supported by synthesis of published studies, we propose recommendations for how D&I science is relevant for advancing healthcare equity. We used iterative discussions internally and at the Summit to refine preliminary findings and recommendations.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified four guiding principles and three D&I science domains with strong promise for accelerating progress toward healthcare equity. We present eight recommendations and more than 60 opportunities for action by practitioners, healthcare leaders, policy makers, and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Promising areas for D&I science to impact healthcare equity include the following: attention to equity in the development and delivery of evidence-based interventions; the science of adaptation; de-implementation of low-value care; monitoring equity markers; organizational policies for healthcare equity; improving the economic evaluation of implementation; policy and dissemination research; and capacity building.

Moving toward transdisciplinary approaches to addressing HIV and psychological trauma: Barriers and facilitators to building collaborations

Most people living with HIV have experienced potentially traumatic events (e.g., physical assault, sexual assault, intimate partner violence) and, consequently, are at risk of trauma-related mental health difficulties, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet, research and clinical efforts related to HIV and psychological trauma remain siloed. Guided by the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research, the current study explored barriers and facilitators to transdisciplinary HIV/trauma clinical and research collaborations to address the overlap between HIV and psychological trauma. This exploration represents an initial step in the development and conceptualization of a transdisciplinary team known as Team REACH (Resiliency, Engagement, and Accessibility for Comorbid HIV/PTSD), which seeks to address the overlap between HIV and psychological trauma. Barriers and facilitators were explored through individual qualitative interviews with 21 research and clinical staff members across two clinics within an academic medical center (i.e., an infectious diseases clinic and a trauma-focused specialty mental health clinic). The findings revealed a number of barriers, including a lack of awareness, time and funding concerns, and a lack of clarity regarding services or the division of responsibility. The results also highlight perceived facilitators for collaborations, such as existing infrastructure and relationships, shared goals, leadership support, knowledge of other agency activities, and staff/team buy-in. Recommendations for increased collaboration included ongoing communication, needs assessment and goal development, access to partners, and role establishment. These findings will guide the next steps in further developing transdisciplinary collaboration goals and have implications for increasing collaborative approaches to patient care and targeting processes to enhance team effectiveness for transdisciplinary goals.

Demonstration Project of Long-Acting Antiretroviral Therapy in a Diverse Population of People With HIV

BACKGROUND

Intramuscular cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) is the only long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) regimen approved for people with HIV (PWH). Long-acting ART holds promise for improving outcomes among populations with barriers to adherence but is only approved for PWH who have virologic suppression with use of oral ART before initiating injectables.

OBJECTIVE

To examine LA-ART in a population of PWH that includes those with viremia.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Urban academic safety-net HIV clinic.

PATIENTS

Publicly insured adults living with HIV with and without viral suppression, high rates of unstable housing, mental illness, and substance use.

INTERVENTION

Demonstration project of long-acting injectable CAB-RPV.

MEASUREMENTS

Descriptive statistics summarizing cohort outcomes to date, based on pharmacy team logs and electronic medical record data.

RESULTS

Between June 2021 and November 2022, 133 PWH at the Ward 86 HIV Clinic were started on LA-ART, 76 of whom had virologic suppression while using oral ART and 57 of whom had viremia. The median age was 46 years (IQR, 25 to 68 years); 117 (88%) were cisgender men, 83 (62%) had non-White race, 56 (42%) were experiencing unstable housing or homelessness, and 45 (34%) had substance use. Among those with virologic suppression, 100% (95% CI, 94% to 100%) maintained suppression. Among PWH with viremia, at a median of 33 days, 54 of 57 had viral suppression, 1 showed the expected 2-log10 reduction in HIV RNA level, and 2 experienced early virologic failure. Overall, 97.5% (CI, 89.1% to 99.8%) were projected to achieve virologic suppression by a median of 33 weeks. The current virologic failure rate of 1.5% in the cohort is similar to that across registrational clinical trials at 48 weeks.

LIMITATION

Single-site study.

CONCLUSION

This project demonstrates the ability of LA-ART to achieve virologic suppression among PWH, including those with viremia and challenges to adherence. Further data on the ability of LA-ART to achieve viral suppression in people with barriers to adherence are needed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health, City and County of San Francisco, and Health Resources and Services Administration.