Fulton John, Bertrand Thomas, Khanna Aditya, Steingrimsson Jon, Hogan Joseph, MacAskill Meghan, Bhattarai Lila, Novitsky Vladimir, Gillani Fizza, Guang August, Hague Joel, Dunn Casey, Bandy Utpala, Kantor Rami
Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
, 80 Corin Street, Warwick, RI, 02886, USA.
AIDS Behav. 2025 Jun 17. doi: 10.1007/s10461-025-04796-7.
Contact tracing is effective in disrupting HIV transmission, but may be limited by the reluctance or inability of recently HIV-diagnosed persons (RDPs) to engage collaboratively with public health. Leveraging an ongoing study endeavoring to increase the yield of standard-of-care contact tracing by re-interviewing a subset of RDPs, we assessed RDP engagement during first and second interviews and compared the two. We used Likert scale scores to develop and employ a 35-point index tool, to assess engagement during first interviews (standard of care) and second interviews (executed in a parent study to inform RDPs of clustering in an attempt to identify additional contacts). Cronbach's Alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the index, and differences between the index scores of paired (first vs. second) interviews were assessed using paired Student's t-tests. Between January/2021 and December/2022, first interviews were performed with 120 RDPs, and second interviews with 20 of the 120 RDPs. The index was simple to use and internally consistent (Alpha = 0.93). Higher engagement was observed in first interviews (~ 30/35, soon after diagnosis) and lower engagement in second interviews (~ 22/35, usually several weeks later) (P < 0.01). Using a novel engagement tool, we observed diminished engagement between first and second contact tracing interviews, suggesting the limits of RDPs' collaboration with public health praxis. The simple, reliable, and informative engagement index we developed and tested may be used in the future to explore interactions between RDPs and public health practitioners.
接触者追踪在阻断艾滋病毒传播方面是有效的,但可能会受到近期被诊断出感染艾滋病毒者(RDPs)不愿或无法与公共卫生部门合作的限制。利用一项正在进行的研究,该研究试图通过重新访谈一部分RDPs来提高标准护理接触者追踪的效率,我们评估了RDPs在第一次和第二次访谈中的参与度,并对两者进行了比较。我们使用李克特量表分数来开发和应用一个35分的指数工具,以评估第一次访谈(标准护理)和第二次访谈(在一项母研究中进行,告知RDPs存在聚集情况以试图识别更多接触者)期间的参与度。使用克朗巴哈系数来评估该指数的内部一致性,并使用配对学生t检验评估配对(第一次与第二次)访谈的指数分数之间的差异。在2021年1月至2022年12月期间,对120名RDPs进行了第一次访谈,对其中20名RDPs进行了第二次访谈。该指数使用简单且内部一致(α = 0.93)。在第一次访谈中观察到更高的参与度(约30/35,诊断后不久),而在第二次访谈中参与度较低(约22/35,通常在几周后)(P < 0.01)。通过使用一种新颖的参与度工具,我们观察到第一次和第二次接触者追踪访谈之间的参与度有所下降,这表明RDPs与公共卫生实践合作存在局限性。我们开发并测试的这个简单、可靠且信息丰富的参与度指数未来可用于探索RDPs与公共卫生从业者之间的互动。