“If It’s Not Working, Why Would They Be Testing It?”: mental models of HIV vaccine trials and preventive misconception among men who have sex with men in India

BMC Public Health

Murali Shunmugam¹  Ruban Nelson¹  Neeti Singhal²  Peter A Newman³  Venkatesan Chakrapani¹ 

[1] Centre for Sexuality and Health Research and Policy (C-SHaRP), 38 (Old No. 167), Ground Floor, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, India;The Humsafar Trust, III floor, Manthan Plaza, Nehru Road, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 India;Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V4 Canada

关键词: Qualitative research;    India;    Men who have sex with men;    Vaccine-induced seropositivity;    Preventive misconception;    Informed consent;    Clinical trials;    HIV vaccines;   

Others  :  1161951
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-731

 received in 2013-03-04, accepted in 2013-08-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Informed consent based on comprehension of potential risks and benefits is fundamental to the ethical conduct of clinical research. We explored mental models of candidate HIV vaccines and clinical trials that may impact on the feasibility and ethics of biomedical HIV prevention trials among men who have sex with men (MSM) in India.

Methods

A community-based research project was designed and implemented in partnership with community-based organizations serving MSM in Chennai and Mumbai. We conducted 12 focus groups (n = 68) with diverse MSM and 14 key informant interviews with MSM community leaders/service providers using a semi-structured interview guide to explore knowledge and beliefs about HIV vaccines and clinical trials. Focus groups (60–90 minutes) and interviews (45–60 minutes) were conducted in participants’ native language (Tamil in Chennai; Marathi or Hindi in Mumbai), audio-taped, transcribed and translated into English. We explored focus group and interview data using thematic analysis and a constant comparative method, with a focus on mental models of HIV vaccines and clinical trials.

Results

A mental model of HIV vaccine-induced seropositivity as “having HIV” resulted in fears of vaccine-induced infection and HIV stigma. Some participants feared inactivated vaccines might “drink blood” and “come alive”. Pervasive preventive misconception was based on a mental model of prevention trials as interventions, overestimation of likely efficacy of candidate vaccines and likelihood of being assigned to the experimental group, with expectations of protective benefits and decreased condom use. Widespread misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of placebo and random assignment supported perceptions of clinical trials as “cheating”. Key informants expressed concerns that volunteers from vulnerable Indian communities were being used as “experimental rats” to benefit high-income countries.

Conclusions

Evidence-informed interventions that engage with shared mental models among potential trial volunteers, along with policies and funding mechanisms that ensure local access to products that demonstrate efficacy in trials, may support the safe and ethical implementation of HIV vaccine trials in India.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Chakrapani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Renaud M: Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 1982, 58:1689-1697.
• [2]Lindegger G, Richter LM: HIV vaccine trials: critical issues in informed consent. S Afr J Sci 2000, 96:313-317.
• [3]Chakrapani V, Newman PA, Singhal N, Jerajani J, Shunmugam M: Willingness to participate in HIV vaccine trials among men who have sex with men in Chennai and Mumbai, India: a social ecological approach. PLoS One 2012, 7(12):e51080.
• [4]Lindegger G, Milford C, Slack C, Quayle M, Xaba X, Vardas E: Beyond the checklist: assessing understanding for HIV vaccine trial participation in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007, 43(5):560-566.
• [5]Excler JL, Beyrer C: Human immunodeficiency virus vaccine development in developing countries: are efficacy trials feasible? J Hum Virol 2000, 3:193-214.
• [6]Guenter D, Esparza J, Macklin R: Ethical considerations in international HIV vaccine trials: summary of a consultative process conducted by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). J Med Ethics 2000, 26:37-43.
• [7]Lurie P, Bishaw M, Chesney MA, Cooke M, Fernandes ME, Hearst N, Katongole-Mbidde E, Koetsawang S, Lindan CP, Mandel J, Mhloyi M, Coates TJ: Ethical, behavioral, and social aspects of HIV vaccine trials in developing countries. JAMA 1994, 271(4):295-301.
• [8]UNAIDS: Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. Geneva; 2010. http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/global_report.htm webcite
• [9]Excler JL, Kochhar S, Kapoor S, Das S, Bahri J, Ghosh MD, Ganguly NK, Nayyar A, Chataway M: Preparedness for AIDS vaccine trials in India. Indian J Med Res 2008, 127(6):531-538.
• [10]Sharma DC: Research halted at Indian centre accused of misconduct. Lancet 2001, 358(9286):992.
• [11]Thorat MA: Medical research in India. Lancet 2006, 368(9536):643-644.
• [12]Jesani A, Coutinho L: AIDS vaccine trials in India: ethical benchmarks and unanswered questions. Indian J Med Ethics 2007, 4:2-3.
• [13]Nayyar A: AIDS vaccine trials for India: getting the facts right. Indian J Med Ethics 2007, 4:109-110.
• [14]Padma TV: India stops further trials of HIV vaccine. Science and Development Network 2007. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bXNeT7BygfQJ:www.scidev.net/fr/news/l-inde-met-un-terme-aux-essais-d-un-vaccin-contre-.html%3Fscimob%3D1+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=th webcite
• [15]Chaturvedi S, Dasgupta R, Adhish V, Ganguly KK, Rai S, Sushant L, Srabasti S, Arora NK: Deconstructing social resistance to pulse polio campaign in two North Indian districts. Indian Pediatr 2009, 46(11):963-974.
• [16]Hussain RS, McGarvey ST, Shahab T, Fruzzetti LM: Fatigue and fear with shifting polio eradication strategies in India: a study of social resistance to vaccination. PLoS One 2012, 7(9):e46274.
• [17]Mattheij I, Pollock AM, Brhlikova P: Do cervical cancer data justify HPV vaccination in India? Epidemiological data sources and comprehensiveness. J R Soc Med 2012, 105(6):250-262.
• [18]Suba EJ, Raab SS: HPV vaccination: waiting for evidence of effectiveness. Lancet 2010, 375(9715):639-640.
• [19]Mudur G: Row erupts over study of HPV vaccine in 23,000 girls in India. BMJ 2012, 345:e4390.
• [20]Pandey V: Cancer vaccine programme suspended after 4 girls die. [ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_cancer-vaccine-programme-suspended-after-4-girls-die_1368681 webcite]
• [21]Dhar A: Centre halts HPV vaccine project. [ http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/08/stories/2010040857390100.htm webcite]
• [22]Ray SG, Majumdar K: The cervical cancer bazaar. Tehelka Magazine 2010., 7(11) http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Ne200310coverstory.asp webcite
• [23]Misra G: Decriminalising homosexuality in India. Reprod Health Matters 2009, 17(34):20-28.
• [24]Thomas B, Mimiaga MJ, Kumar S, Swaminathan S, Safren SA, Mayer KH: HIV in Indian MSM: reasons for a concentrated epidemic & strategies for prevention. Indian J Med Res 2011, 134(6):920-929.
• [25]Johnson-Laird PN: Mental models and human reasoning. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 107(43):18243-18250.
• [26]Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ: Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• [27]Newman PA, Seiden DS, Roberts KJ, Kakinami L, Duan N: A small dose of HIV? HIV vaccine mental models and risk communication. Health Educ Behav 2009, 36(2):321-333.
• [28]Lynam T, Brown K: Mental models in human-environment interactions: theory, policy implications, and methodological explorations. Ecol Soc 2011, 17(3):24.
• [29]Bostrom A: Vaccine risk communication: lessons from risk perception, decision-making and environmental risk communication. Risk Health Saf Environ 1997, 8:173-200.
• [30]Downs JS, Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff W: Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine 2008, 26:1595-1607.
• [31]Newman PA, Yim S, Daley A, Walisser R, Halpenny R, Cunningham W, Loutfy M: “Once bitten, twice shy”: participant perspectives in the aftermath of an early HIV vaccine trial termination. Vaccine 2011, 29(3):451-458.
• [32]Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S: Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation 2009, 119(19):2633-2642.
• [33]Patton MQ: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
• [34]Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE: Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012.
• [35]Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2006.
• [36]Lincoln YS, Guba EG: Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1985.
• [37]Simon AE, Wu AW, Lavori PW, Sugarman J: Preventive misconception: its nature, presence, and ethical implications for research. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32(5):370-374.
• [38]Sekaly RP: The failed HIV Merck vaccine study: a step back or a launching point for future vaccine development? J Exp Med 2008, 205(1):7-12.
• [39]Buchbinder SP, Mehrotra DV, Duerr A, Fitzgerald DW, Mogg R, Li D, Gilbert PB, Lama JR, Marmor M, del Rio C, McElrath MJ, Casimiro DR, Gottesdiener KM, Chodakewitz JA, Corey L, Robertson MN, the Step Study Protocol Team: Efficacy assessment of a cell-mediated immunity HIV-1 vaccine (the Step Study): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, test-of-concept trial. Lancet 2008, 372:1881-1893.
• [40]Kahneman D, Miller DT: Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol Rev 1986, 93:136-153.
• [41]Kahneman D, Tversky A: Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 1984, 39:341-350.
• [42]Newman PA, Daley A, Halpenny R, Loutfy M: Community heroes or ‘high-risk’ pariahs? Reasons for declining to enroll in an HIV vaccine trial. Vaccine 2008, 26(8):1091-1097.
• [43]Logie CH, Newman PA, Chakrapani V, Shunmugam M: Adapting the minority stress model: associations between gender non-conformity stigma, HIV-related stigma and depression among men who have sex with men in South India. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74(8):1261-1268.
• [44]Newman PA, Logie C, James L, Charles T, Maxwell J, Salam K, Woodford M: ‘Speaking the dialect’: understanding public discourse in the aftermath of an HIV vaccine trial shutdown. Am J Public Health 2011, 101(9):1749-1758.
• [45]Buchbinder SP, Metch B, Holte SE, Scheer S, Coletti A, Vittinghoff E: Determinants of enrollment in a preventive HIV vaccine trial: hypothetical versus actual willingness and barriers to participation. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004, 36(1):604-612.
• [46]Emanuel EJ, Currie XE, Herman A: Undue inducement in clinical research in developing countries: is it a worry? Lancet 2005, 366:336-340.
• [47]Woodsong C, Alleman P, Musara P, Chandipwisa A, Chirenje M, Martinson F, Hoffman I: Preventive misconception as a motivation for participation and adherence in microbicide trials: evidence from female participants and male partners in Malawi and Zimbabwe. AIDS Behav 2012, 16(3):785-790.
• [48]Bartholow BN, Buchbinder S, Celum C, Goli V, Koblin B, Para M, Marmor M, Novak RM, Mayer K, Creticos C, Orozco-Cronin P, Popovic V, Mastro TD, VISION/VAX004 Study Team: HIV sexual risk behavior over 36 months of follow-up in the world’s first HIV vaccine efficacy trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005, 39:90-101.
• [49]Flory J, Emanuel EJ: Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004, 292:1593-1601.
• [50]Ashforth A, Nattrass N: Ambiguities of ‘culture’ and the antiretroviral rollout in South Africa. Soc Dyn 2005, 31(2):285-303.
• [51]Koen J, Essack Z, Slack C, Lindegger G, Newman PA: ‘It looks like you just want them when things get rough’: civil society perspectives on negative trial results and stakeholder engagement in HIV prevention trials. Dev World BioethEpub ahead of print.
• [52]Newman PA: Towards a science of community engagement. Lancet 2006, 367(9507):302.