| Literature DB >> 36048289 |
Dexter R Voisin1, Travonne Edwards2, Lois M Takahashi3, Silvia Valadez-Tapia4, Habiba Shah4, Carter Oselett4, Nora Bouacha4, Andrea Dakin4, Katherine Quinn5.
Abstract
This study conducted 28 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Young Black Men who have Sex with Men in Chicago to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on their HIV care and ancillary service access. The qualitative analysis identified both negative and positive effects. The negative effects included: (l) mixed disruptions in linkage to and receipt of HIV care and ancillary services, and (2) heightened concerns about police and racial tensions in Chicago following the murder of George Floyd, contributing to possible disruption of retention in care. The positive effects included: (1) the ability to reflect and socially connect, contributing to heightened self-care and retention in care, and (2) some improvements in receipt of medical care. These findings suggest that while COVID-19 disruptions in care reduced in-person use of HIV care, the expansion of telemedicine allowed more administrative tasks to be handled online and focused in-person interactions on more substantive interactions.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Chicago; HIV care continuum; Medical care improvements; YBMSM
Year: 2022 PMID: 36048289 PMCID: PMC9434087 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-022-03789-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Primary themes and illustrative quotes from thematic analysis
| Themes | Brief description of theme | Example quote |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Negative Effects of COVID-19: Disruptions in linkages to HIV care and treatment | Linkages to HIV care and ancillary services were disrupted and uneven during the pandemic | “But the one thing that I didn’t really particularly care for – there was two other case managers. I don’t know if they were assigned to me temporarily or what, but they came to help me one time. And I never saw them again. I never heard from them again.” |
| The pandemic led to disruptions of preferred in-person medical care. Some persons indicated a preference for in-person HIV care service delivery and COVID-19 led to a decline in face-to-face medical appointments with doctors and therapists | “This doctor’s appointment I got today was real hard to set up……I normally just do a walk-in instead of planning ahead. I don’t really like to plan my doctor’s appointment ahead because I don’t like thinking about it [HIV care service]. And since COVID they say we gotta plan it two weeks ahead, which is always hard for me.” | |
| (2) Broader negative pandemic effects: Heightened concerns about police and racial tensions and potential effects on retention in care | Some participants remarked how there was a heightened awareness of police violence during the pandemic, contributing to potential challenges to retention in care | “But in quarantine, it was different. It was just like when all this stuff happened with George Floyd, it would just come up in my dreams. It was just very different than all the [other] times before. And there’s so much content showing what’s happening. I’m on Twitter, I see all those things.” |
| (3) Positive pandemic effects: Ability to reflect and some improvements in care | Participants saw the pandemic’s policy responses (e.g., shelter-in-place and work from home) as opportunities to deepen social connections, broaden their ability to provide self-care and maintain HIV care continuum engagement | “Honestly, since Covid and since all of these things that have been happening, I think everybody wants to take care of themselves a lot more.” “It [the pandemic] kind of forced me to be shut up in an apartment with – hell, it gave me the time that I’ve always wanted, the time that we had always dreamed about since the first time we laid eyes on each other. I’m grateful for that.” |
| The pandemic did not worsen HIV care continuum engagement as many physicians were also operating virtually | “It’s easier going to the doctor because I only have to go every six months as opposed to three.” |
Demographics characteristics of study participants (n = 28)
| Continuous variables | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 27 | 23–30 |