Cynthia E Schairer1, Sanjay R Mehta2,3,4, Staal A Vinterbo5, Martin Hoenigl2, Michael Kalichman4,6, Susan J Little2. 1. a Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego , La Jolla , California , USA. 2. b Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego , La Jolla , California , USA. 3. c Department of Medicine, San Diego Veterans Affairs Medical Center , San Diego , California , USA. 4. d Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego , La Jolla , California , USA. 5. e Department of Information Security and Communication Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Gjøvik , Norway. 6. f Research Ethics Program, University of California San Diego , La Jolla , California , USA.
Abstract
Background: Molecular epidemiology (ME) is a technique used to study the dynamics of pathogen transmission through a population. When used to study HIV infections, ME generates powerful information about how HIV is transmitted, including epidemiologic patterns of linkage and, potentially, transmission direction. Thus, ME raises challenging questions about the most responsible way to protect individual privacy while acquiring and using these data to advance public health and inform HIV intervention strategies. Here, we report on stakeholders' expectations for how researchers and public health agencies might use HIV ME. Methods: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 40 key stakeholders to find out how these individuals respond to the proposed risks and benefits of HIV ME. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Expectations were assessed through analysis of responses to hypothetical scenarios designed to help interviewees think through the implications of this emerging technique in the contexts of research and public health. Results: Our analysis reveals a wide range of imagined responsibilities, capabilities, and trustworthiness of researchers and public health agencies. Specifically, many respondents expect researchers and public health agencies to use HIV ME carefully and maintain transparency about how data will be used. Informed consent was discussed as an important opportunity for notification of privacy risks. Furthermore, some respondents wished that public health agencies were held to the same form of oversight and accountability represented by informed consent in research. Conclusions: To prevent HIV ME from becoming a barrier to testing or a source of public mistrust, the sense of vulnerability expressed by some respondents must be addressed. In research, informed consent is an obvious opportunity for this. Without giving specimen donors a similar opportunity to opt out, public health agencies may find it difficult to adopt HIV ME without deterring testing and treatment.
Background: Molecular epidemiology (ME) is a technique used to study the dynamics of pathogen transmission through a population. When used to study HIV infections, ME generates powerful information about how HIV is transmitted, including epidemiologic patterns of linkage and, potentially, transmission direction. Thus, ME raises challenging questions about the most responsible way to protect individual privacy while acquiring and using these data to advance public health and inform HIV intervention strategies. Here, we report on stakeholders' expectations for how researchers and public health agencies might use HIV ME. Methods: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 40 key stakeholders to find out how these individuals respond to the proposed risks and benefits of HIV ME. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Expectations were assessed through analysis of responses to hypothetical scenarios designed to help interviewees think through the implications of this emerging technique in the contexts of research and public health. Results: Our analysis reveals a wide range of imagined responsibilities, capabilities, and trustworthiness of researchers and public health agencies. Specifically, many respondents expect researchers and public health agencies to use HIV ME carefully and maintain transparency about how data will be used. Informed consent was discussed as an important opportunity for notification of privacy risks. Furthermore, some respondents wished that public health agencies were held to the same form of oversight and accountability represented by informed consent in research. Conclusions: To prevent HIV ME from becoming a barrier to testing or a source of public mistrust, the sense of vulnerability expressed by some respondents must be addressed. In research, informed consent is an obvious opportunity for this. Without giving specimen donors a similar opportunity to opt out, public health agencies may find it difficult to adopt HIV ME without deterring testing and treatment.
Authors: Ann M Dennis; Stéphane Hué; Christopher B Hurt; Sonia Napravnik; Joseph Sebastian; Deenan Pillay; Joseph J Eron Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sanjay R Mehta; Antoine Chaillon; Tommi L Gaines; Patricia E Gonzalez-Zuniga; Jamila K Stockman; Horatio Almanza-Reyes; Jose Roman Chavez; Alicia Vera; Karla D Wagner; Thomas L Patterson; Brianna Scott; Davey M Smith; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Mark Yarborough; Kelly Edwards; Paula Espinoza; Gail Geller; Alok Sarwal; Richard Sharp; Paul Spicer Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Sanjay R Mehta; Joel O Wertheim; Kimberly C Brouwer; Karla D Wagner; Antoine Chaillon; Steffanie Strathdee; Thomas L Patterson; Maria G Rangel; Mlenka Vargas; Ben Murrell; Richard Garfein; Susan J Little; Davey M Smith Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Eli Samuel Rosenberg; Jeremy Alexander Grey; Travis Howard Sanchez; Patrick Sean Sullivan Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2016-05-17
Authors: Cynthia Schairer; Sanjay R Mehta; Staal A Vinterbo; Martin Hoenigl; Michael Kalichman; Susan Little Journal: J Public Health Res Date: 2017-12-13
Authors: Shannan N Rich; Veronica L Richards; Carla N Mavian; William M Switzer; Brittany Rife Magalis; Karalee Poschman; Shana Geary; Steven E Broadway; Spencer B Bennett; Jason Blanton; Thomas Leitner; J Lucas Boatwright; Nichole E Stetten; Robert L Cook; Emma C Spencer; Marco Salemi; Mattia Prosperi Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 5.818