Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021
Expert stakeholder perspectives on the acceptability of treatment-as-prevention in prison: a qualitative substudy of the 'Surveillance and Treatment of Prisoners with Hepatitis C' project (SToP-C).
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rance Jake, Lafferty Lise, Treloar Carla, SToP-C Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mathematical modelling has demonstrated the theoretical feasibility of HCV treatment-as-prevention strategies in custodial settings, yet limited empirical data exists. The Australian 'Surveillance and Treatment of Prisoners with Hepatitis C' study is the world's first trial of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment-as-prevention in prison. This study aimed to analyse how expert stakeholders involved in the Australian HCV response assessed the acceptability of HCV treatment-as-prevention in prison using interview data from the SToP-C qualitative substudy.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen key HCV experts.
MEASUREMENTS: Drawing upon Sekhon's theoretical framework of acceptability, data were organized thematically under four component constructs of acceptability: affective attitude; ethicality; opportunity costs; and perceived effectiveness.
FINDINGS: Most differences in participant assessments of acceptability were a matter of relative emphasis and prioritization rather than absolute polarity. Nonetheless, a small minority of participants was overtly critical of the approach. Arguing against the focus on treatment, they instead advocated for prevention-as-prevention, including the improvement and expansion of existing harm reduction measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative analysis of expert stakeholder assessments of the acceptability of hepatitis C virus treatment-as-prevention in Australian prisons found no opposition to the universal rollout of direct-acting anti-virals, but most voiced concern regarding the lack of effective primary prevention in Australian prisons.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen key HCV experts.
MEASUREMENTS: Drawing upon Sekhon's theoretical framework of acceptability, data were organized thematically under four component constructs of acceptability: affective attitude; ethicality; opportunity costs; and perceived effectiveness.
FINDINGS: Most differences in participant assessments of acceptability were a matter of relative emphasis and prioritization rather than absolute polarity. Nonetheless, a small minority of participants was overtly critical of the approach. Arguing against the focus on treatment, they instead advocated for prevention-as-prevention, including the improvement and expansion of existing harm reduction measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative analysis of expert stakeholder assessments of the acceptability of hepatitis C virus treatment-as-prevention in Australian prisons found no opposition to the universal rollout of direct-acting anti-virals, but most voiced concern regarding the lack of effective primary prevention in Australian prisons.