Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 9:10:16.
doi: 10.21037/mhealth-23-57. eCollection 2024.

Understanding the potential implementation determinants of Our Plan: a couples-based digital human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention for same-gender male couples

Affiliations

Understanding the potential implementation determinants of Our Plan: a couples-based digital human immunodeficiency virus prevention intervention for same-gender male couples

Kristi E Gamarel et al. Mhealth. .

Abstract

Background: There has been a proliferation of digital health interventions (DHIs) focused on addressing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention and treatment outcomes, including couples-based interventions with same-gender male couples. However, the barriers and facilitators of implementing couples-based HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention interventions using digital platforms in community-based organizations remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to explore the implementation determinants of Our Plan, a couples-based DHI designed for new relationships of same-gender male couples and dyadic, sexual partnerships.

Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 organization leaders, healthcare providers, and staff at acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-service and community-based organizations in 13 states serving populations in Ending the HIV Epidemic jurisdictions. Interview items and follow-up questions were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inquire about implementation determinants of Our Plan.

Results: Most participants highlighted several relative advantages of Our Plan: increasing capacity to support couples, potential synergy with existing programs, and opportunities to increase patient engagement. Participants also discussed relative disadvantages: misalignment with organizational values in the provision of patient-centered models of care and low interest from some priority populations. Participants emphasized the need for adaptability of Our Plan to fit within their local contexts, which encompassed support for both implementers and end-users, cultural tailoring, and privacy and security features. The desired evidence needed to implement Our Plan focused on data on impact, acceptability, and usability and functionality from communities most heavily impacted by the HIV epidemic. The majority of participants described how Our Plan could be integrated within service delivery and aligned with their organization's aspirational values; however, some noted that their organizational culture valued in-person interactions, particularly among patients experiencing structural vulnerabilities. Finally, participants discussed how the implementation of Our Plan would require additional training and funding for staff to support end-users and a relationship with the developers so that they could demonstrate their investment in the communities that their organizations served.

Conclusions: Our Plan was deemed a promising tool among potential implementers. To ensure optimal implementation and organizational fit, Our Plan refinement and evaluation must include implementers and end-users most impacted by the HIV epidemic throughout the entire process.

Keywords: Digital health interventions (DHIs); couples; human immunodeficiency virus prevention (HIV prevention); qualitative interviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://mhealth.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/mhealth-23-57/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Similar articles

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2019. HIV Surveillance Report. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html
    1. Goodreau SM, Carnegie NB, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM)? PLoS One 2012;7:e50522. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050522 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, et al. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS 2009;23:1153-62. 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32832baa34 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burton J, Darbes LA, Operario D. Couples-focused behavioral interventions for prevention of HIV: systematic review of the state of evidence. AIDS Behav 2010;14:1-10. 10.1007/s10461-008-9471-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martinez O, Fernandez MI, Yang C, et al. Feasibility and Acceptability Pilot Test of Connecting Latinos en Parejas: A Couples-Based HIV Prevention Intervention for Latino Male Couples. Am J Mens Health 2023;17:15579883231167106. 10.1177/15579883231167106 - DOI - PMC - PubMed