OBJECTIVE: Adolescents have had very limited access to research on biomedical prevention interventions despite high rates of HIV acquisition. One concern is that adolescents are a vulnerable population, and trials carry a possibility of harm, requiring investigators to take additional precautions. Of particular concern is preventive misconception, or the overestimation of personal protection that is afforded by enrolment in a prevention intervention trial. METHODS: As part of a larger study of preventive misconception in adolescent HIV vaccine trials, we interviewed 33 male and female 16-19-year-olds who have sex with men. Participants underwent a simulated HIV vaccine trial consent process, and then completed a semistructured interview about their understanding and opinions related to enrolment in a HIV vaccine trial. A grounded theory analysis looked for shared concepts, and focused on the content and process of adolescent participants' understanding of HIV vaccination and the components of preventive misconception, including experiment, placebo and randomisation. RESULTS: Across interviews, adolescents demonstrated active processing of information, in which they questioned the interviewer, verbally worked out their answers based upon information provided, and corrected themselves. We observed a wide variety of understanding of research concepts. While most understood experiment and placebo, fewer understood randomisation. All understood the need for safer sex even if they did not understand the more basic concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Education about basic concepts related to clinical trials, time to absorb materials and assessment of understanding may be necessary in future biomedical prevention trials.
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents have had very limited access to research on biomedical prevention interventions despite high rates of HIV acquisition. One concern is that adolescents are a vulnerable population, and trials carry a possibility of harm, requiring investigators to take additional precautions. Of particular concern is preventive misconception, or the overestimation of personal protection that is afforded by enrolment in a prevention intervention trial. METHODS: As part of a larger study of preventive misconception in adolescent HIV vaccine trials, we interviewed 33 male and female 16-19-year-olds who have sex with men. Participants underwent a simulated HIV vaccine trial consent process, and then completed a semistructured interview about their understanding and opinions related to enrolment in a HIV vaccine trial. A grounded theory analysis looked for shared concepts, and focused on the content and process of adolescent participants' understanding of HIV vaccination and the components of preventive misconception, including experiment, placebo and randomisation. RESULTS: Across interviews, adolescents demonstrated active processing of information, in which they questioned the interviewer, verbally worked out their answers based upon information provided, and corrected themselves. We observed a wide variety of understanding of research concepts. While most understood experiment and placebo, fewer understood randomisation. All understood the need for safer sex even if they did not understand the more basic concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Education about basic concepts related to clinical trials, time to absorb materials and assessment of understanding may be necessary in future biomedical prevention trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV Infection and AIDS; Minors/Parental Consent; Research Ethics; Research on Special Populations
Authors: Bret J Rudy; Bill G Kapogiannis; Michelle A Lally; Glenda E Gray; Linda-Gail Bekker; Paul Krogstad; Ian McGowan Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Nancy S Padian; Sandra I McCoy; Salim S Abdool Karim; Nina Hasen; Julia Kim; Michael Bartos; Elly Katabira; Stefano M Bertozzi; Bernhard Schwartländer; Myron S Cohen Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Danice K Eaton; Laura Kann; Steve Kinchen; Shari Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Joseph Hawkins; William A Harris; Richard Lowry; Tim McManus; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Connie Lim; Howell Wechsler Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2012-06-08
Authors: Jeffrey N Martin; Michelle E Roland; Torsten B Neilands; Melissa R Krone; Joshua D Bamberger; Robert P Kohn; Margaret A Chesney; Karena Franses; James O Kahn; Thomas J Coates; Mitchell H Katz Journal: AIDS Date: 2004-03-26 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Andreia B Alexander; Mary A Ott; Michelle A Lally; Kevin Sniecinski; Alyne Baker; Gregory D Zimet Journal: Vaccine Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Celia B Fisher; Miriam R Arbeit; Melissa S Dumont; Kathryn Macapagal; Brian Mustanski Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Marilyn E Coors; Kristen M Raymond; Christian J Hopfer; Joseph Sakai; Shannon K McWilliams; Susan Young; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.492