Amelia S Knopf1, Mary A Ott2, Nancy Liu3, Bill G Kapogiannis4, Gregory D Zimet2, J Dennis Fortenberry2, Sybil G Hosek5. 1. Department of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: asknopf@iu.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Adolescent Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Westat, Rockville, Maryland. 4. Department of Health and Human Services, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a persistent HIV epidemic among sexual and gender minority adolescents in the U.S. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an efficacious prevention strategy, but not yet approved for minors. Minors' access to biomedical HIV prevention technologies is impeded by the ethical and legal complexities of consent to research participation. We explore autonomous consent and study experiences among minor and adult participants in Project PrEPare, a Phase II safety study of PrEP for HIV prevention. METHODS: Data for this mixed-methods descriptive study were collected via self-administered web-survey and in-depth telephone interviews in early 2016. Eligible participants were previously enrolled in Project PrEPare. We attempted to contact 191 participants; 74 were reached and expressed interest in participating and 58 enrolled. RESULTS: Participants nearly universally felt well informed, understood the study, and freely volunteered with the clear understanding they could withdraw any time. All felt supported by study staff, but a small minority wished for more support during enrollment. Minors were more likely than adults to indicate a wish for more support in decision-making, and adults expressed higher satisfaction with their decision compared to minors. There was no association between elements of consent and Project PrEPare study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Participants had an overwhelmingly positive experience in a Phase II safety study of PrEP for HIV prevention. Some minors wished for more support during the decision-making process, but none consulted their parents about the decision. Our results support the inclusion of decisional supports in consent processes for adolescents, while also protecting their privacy.
PURPOSE: There is a persistent HIV epidemic among sexual and gender minority adolescents in the U.S. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an efficacious prevention strategy, but not yet approved for minors. Minors' access to biomedical HIV prevention technologies is impeded by the ethical and legal complexities of consent to research participation. We explore autonomous consent and study experiences among minor and adult participants in Project PrEPare, a Phase II safety study of PrEP for HIV prevention. METHODS: Data for this mixed-methods descriptive study were collected via self-administered web-survey and in-depth telephone interviews in early 2016. Eligible participants were previously enrolled in Project PrEPare. We attempted to contact 191 participants; 74 were reached and expressed interest in participating and 58 enrolled. RESULTS:Participants nearly universally felt well informed, understood the study, and freely volunteered with the clear understanding they could withdraw any time. All felt supported by study staff, but a small minority wished for more support during enrollment. Minors were more likely than adults to indicate a wish for more support in decision-making, and adults expressed higher satisfaction with their decision compared to minors. There was no association between elements of consent and Project PrEPare study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Participants had an overwhelmingly positive experience in a Phase II safety study of PrEP for HIV prevention. Some minors wished for more support during the decision-making process, but none consulted their parents about the decision. Our results support the inclusion of decisional supports in consent processes for adolescents, while also protecting their privacy.
Authors: Sybil G Hosek; Bret Rudy; Raphael Landovitz; Bill Kapogiannis; George Siberry; Brandy Rutledge; Nancy Liu; Jennifer Brothers; Kathleen Mulligan; Gregory Zimet; Michelle Lally; Kenneth H Mayer; Peter Anderson; Jennifer Kiser; James F Rooney; Craig M Wilson Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Amy Lewis Gilbert; Amelia S Knopf; J Dennis Fortenberry; Sybil G Hosek; Bill G Kapogiannis; Gregory D Zimet Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.012
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: Deven T Hamilton; Steven M Goodreau; Samuel M Jenness; Patrick S Sullivan; Li Yan Wang; Richard L Dunville; Lisa C Barrios; Eli S Rosenberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Allison K Groves; Denise D Hallfors; Bonita J Iritani; Stuart Rennie; Fredrick S Odongo; Daniel Kwaro; Nyaguara Amek; Winnie K Luseno Journal: Afr J AIDS Res Date: 2018-10-14 Impact factor: 1.300
Authors: Kelvin L Moore; Shanna Dell; Miles K Oliva; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Richard E Rothman; Renata Arrington-Sanders Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Bill G Kapogiannis; Robert M Nelson; George K Siberry; Sonia Lee; Rohan Hazra Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jenny K R Francis; Jane A Andresen; Alexis Guzman; Jill D McLeigh; Heidi M Kloster; Susan L Rosenthal Journal: J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 1.814
Authors: Amelia Knopf; Claire Burke Draucker; J Dennis Fortenberry; Daniel H Reirden; Renata Arrington-Sanders; John Schneider; Diane Straub; Rebecca Baker; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Gregory D Zimet; Mary A Ott Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-03-30