Author
Listed:
- Elizabeth Ford
- Katie Goddard
- Michael Smith
- Jaime Vera
Abstract
Introduction: People living with HIV (PLWH) now have near-normal life-expectancy, but still experience stigma, and HIV status is treated as sensitive health information. When UK healthcare patient data is curated into anonymised datasets for research, HIV diagnostic codes are stripped out. As PLWH age, we must research how HIV affects conditions of ageing, but cannot do so in current NHS research datasets. We aimed to elicit views on HIV status being shared in NHS datasets, and identify appropriate safeguards. Methods: We conducted three focus groups with a convenience sample of PLWH recruited through HIV charities, presenting information on data governance, data-sharing, patient privacy, law, and research areas envisaged for HIV and ageing. Each focus group involved two presentations, a question session, and facilitated breakout discussion groups. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: 37 PLWH (age range 23-58y) took part. The overarching theme was around trust, both the loss of trust experienced by participants due to previous negative or discriminatory experiences, and the need to slowly build trust in data-sharing initiatives. Further themes showed that participants were supportive of data being used for research and health care improvements, but needed a guarantee that their privacy would be protected. A loss of trust in systems and organisations using the data, suspicion of data users’ agendas, and worry about increased discrimination and stigmatisation made them cautious about data sharing. To rebuild trust participants wanted to see transparent security protocols, accountability for following these, and communication about data flows and uses, as well as awareness training about HIV, and clear involvement of PLWH as full stakeholders on project teams and decision-making panels. Conclusions: PLWH were cautiously in favour of their data being shared for research into HIV, where this could be undertaken with high levels of security, and the close involvement of PLWH to set research agendas and avoid increased stigma.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0316848. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.