BMC Public Health (May 2024)

Prioritization of ethical concerns regarding HIV molecular epidemiology by public health practitioners and researchers

  • Anne L. R. Schuster,
  • Juli Bollinger,
  • Gail Geller,
  • Susan J. Little,
  • Sanjay R. Mehta,
  • Travis Sanchez,
  • Jeremy Sugarman,
  • John F. P. Bridges

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18881-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV ME) can support the early detection of emerging clusters of new HIV infections by combining HIV sequence data routinely obtained during the clinical treatment of people living with HIV with behavioral, geographic, and sociodemographic information. While information about emerging clusters promises to facilitate HIV prevention and treatment efforts, the use of this data also raises several ethical concerns. We sought to assess how those working on the frontlines of HIV ME, specifically public health practitioners (PHPs) and researchers, prioritized these issues. Methods Ethical issues were identified through literature review, qualitative in-depth interviews, and stakeholder engagement. PHPs and researchers using HIV ME prioritized the issues using best–worst scaling (BWS). A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate 11 choice tasks each consisting of a sub-set of 5 ethical concerns. In each task, respondents were asked to assess the most and least concerning issue. Data were analyzed using conditional logit, with a Swait-Louviere test of poolability. Latent class analysis was then used to explore preference heterogeneity. Results In total, 57 respondents completed the BWS experiment May–June 2023 with the Swait-Louviere test indicating that researchers and PHPs could be pooled (p = 0.512). Latent class analysis identified two classes, those highlighting “Harms” (n = 29) (prioritizing concerns about potential risk of legal prosecution, individual harm, and group stigma) and those highlighting “Utility” (n = 28) (prioritizing concerns about limited evidence, resource allocation, non-disclosure of data use for HIV ME, and the potential to infer the directionality of HIV transmission). There were no differences in the characteristics of members across classes. Conclusions The ethical issues of HIV ME vary in importance among stakeholders, reflecting different perspectives on the potential impact and usefulness of the data. Knowing these differences exist can directly inform the focus of future deliberations about the policies and practices of HIV ME in the United States.

Keywords