{"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}
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.
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.