- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02111720
Disclosure to Family (D2F)
Maybe, Maybe Not: Deciding to Disclose HIV Status to Family
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
A two-armed, randomized, parallel group, attention-placebo control design is proposed to assess the relative efficacy of the intervention. Participants who meet the enrollment criteria will complete baseline assessments prior to being randomized into one of two intervention groups: the experimental group or the ACCM. The ACCM will function as a concurrent control group. All participants will receive four individualized sessions of interventional procedures, regardless of assignment. The first 3 sessions will take place at weekly intervals, with a 4-week wait period between sessions 3 and 4. The wait period permits those in the experimental arm to consider disclosure decisions, and to make disclosures if they so choose. Participants in both groups will return for assessment and a booster session at 3-months post-baseline. Participants in both groups will also return at 6- and 12-months post-baseline for follow-up assessments.
Experimental Condition is: Maybe or Maybe Not. The intervention is an individual-level 4-session + 3 month booster series designed to assist persons with HIV in making decisions regarding the disclosure of their HIV serostatus to family members. The CTD asserts that HIV-positive persons weigh the rewards and costs of disclosing their status to family. Whenever the rewards outweigh the costs, disclosure occurs. In previous work, this theory has proven to be an effective model in understanding disclosure to family and friends. The goals of session one are to introduce participants to the intervention, to assess current decision context, to assist in the clarification of participant values, and to encourage the participant to set specific goals for disclosure decision-making. Participants will explore their current family relationships, and determine which family members they want to consider telling, and which family members they know they don't want to tell. Participants are then asked to complete the disclosure decisions assessment with the facilitator. This assessment is used to gather information about the decision context specific to each family member. Participants identify each family members' disclosure status (i.e., aware/not aware), as well as other key attributes of each relationship which inform the decision such as importance of disclosure and satisfaction with the relationship. A series of handouts designed to initiate awareness of the decision process are then provided and discussed. For example, a handout entitled, "Questions to ask yourself as you think about disclosing to family members," is used to stimulate and expand awareness of the context within which disclosure decisions will be made. The goals for session two are to explore the participants' motivations to disclose or not to disclose and the potential costs and rewards of both disclosing and not disclosing. Strategies that can be employed to minimize disclosure-related costs are also reviewed. The goals for session three are to guide participants through disclosure decision making, and to support comfort/acceptance with decisions made. Only when a decision to disclose has been made, participants will complete a Family Disclosure Worksheet, to rehearse potential disclosure conversations, and to prepare for the potential reactions of family members. Where the decision is made not to disclose, emphasis is placed on supporting comfort/acceptance with this decision. Through discussions with their facilitator, participants are encouraged to consider the ongoing nature of the decision-making and evaluation processes. The goal of session four is to support the decision-making process. If applicable, the session begins with a review of the Family Disclosure Worksheet and all other intervention materials. The decision-making process is reviewed, and comfort and acceptance with each decision is again explored. Participants are encouraged to reflect on their readiness to make disclosure decisions with respect to specific family members. If the decision not to disclose is made, the session focus includes support of that decision, and a discussion of the cues for assessment and re-evaluation. Preliminary data from the pilot study suggest that disclosures were still occurring at 3-months post-intervention, indicating that a booster session may be helpful. In addition to initial exposure to "treatment," effective interventions generally include some follow-up or booster sessions to support durability of impact. Low frequency booster sessions following the termination of an intensive treatment have been proposed as one method that may assist in maintaining treatment gains, and have been shown to be effective for a variety of therapeutic interventions including behavioral family therapy, anger management, assertions skills training, behavioral psychotherapy, and HIV prevention. In this study a 3-month booster session will be used to reinforce the effects of the intervention through continued discussion of disclosure decisions in the preceding months, strategies used in disclosing, and rewards and costs of decision-making.
The Control condition is: Attention control case management (ACCM). The CDC's HIV Prevention case management program "Comprehensive Risk Counseling and Services" (CRCS) will be used to provide the attention-placebo control. CRCS combines traditional case management and HIV risk-reduction in an individualized, client-centered program which focuses on the reduction of risk behavior and addresses a client's psychosocial and medical needs. HIV-positive individuals often have numerous psychosocial, financial, and medical challenges, and may not immediately acknowledge the need for prevention services because their basic living needs (e.g., housing) are more salient. CRCS focuses on seven core elements: recruitment and engagement; screening, enrolling, and assessing; prevention planning; risk reduction counseling; referrals and service coordination; monitoring; and discharge and maintenance. These core elements represent the framework of the intervention, and provide enough flexibility to allow implementation that most appropriately serves the needs of clients. Trust is a key element in the ability to work with participants. In the ACCM, the facilitator will work in cooperation with the participant using a problem-solving approach geared to build trust, and will place emphasis on connecting the participant to community-based services and supports. As operationalized by the AIDS and Substance Abuse Program, the initial CRCS meeting provides an opportunity to describe the program, gather information and establish rapport. For those who present with immediate needs such as for shelter or medical care, this first meeting may provide an opportunity for linking the participant to services immediately. The initial treatment plan is developed in the second meeting. The facilitator will go through each of six general areas with the participant to gather a history and picture of the current situation: (1) substance abuse; (2) basic needs; (3) health care; (4) mental health; (5) legal issues; and (6) support systems. Once this review is complete, an initial intervention plan is developed with specific goals and objectives. Case management is a continual process of developing goals, working to meet those goals and addressing obstacles. Thus, the ACCM can mimic the experimental condition, and will be delivered on the same session schedule as the experimental condition and will include a comparable booster session at 3 months. Facilitators will be extensively trained by the PI and will be knowledgeable regarding local resources for HIV-positive persons. Facilitators will be qualified to make appropriate referrals to service providers and to local AIDS service organizations (ASOs), and will evaluate participant referral follow-through by encouraging a discussion of referral activities at each session. Resource lists provided to participants in both groups during the first session will include contact information for a 24-hour hotline in the event of emergency.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Florida
-
Tampa, Florida, United States, 33612
- University of South Florida
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- HIV-positive men and women
- over the age of 18
- indicate an interest in learning more about disclosure
- have at least one family member who does not know of diagnosis
- sexually active in past 90 days
- speak and understand English
- plan on living in Tampa area for at least one year
Exclusion Criteria:
- not HIV-positive
- children under the age of 18
- not able to speak and understand English
- do not plan on living in Tampa area for the year
- not sexually active in last 90 days
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Prevention
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Maybe, Maybe Not
The intervention is an individual-level 4-session + 3 month booster series designed to assist persons with HIV in making decisions regarding the disclosure of their HIV serostatus to family members.
|
The goals of session one are to introduce participants to the intervention, to assess current decision context, to assist in the clarification of participant values, and to encourage the participant to set specific goals for disclosure decision-making.
The goals for session two are to explore the participants' motivations to disclose or not to disclose and the potential costs and rewards of both disclosing and not disclosing.
The goals for session three are to guide participants through disclosure decision making, and to support comfort/acceptance with decisions made.
The goal of session four is to support the decision-making process.
The booster session is used to reinforce the effects of the intervention through continued discussion of disclosure decisions in the preceding months, strategies used in disclosing, and rewards and costs of decision-making.
|
Active Comparator: Comprehensive Risk Counseling and Services
Comprehensive Risk Counseling and Services (CRCS) will be used to provide the attention-placebo control (CDC, 2006).
CRCS combines traditional case management and HIV risk-reduction in an individualized, client-centered program which focuses on the reduction of risk behavior and addresses a client's psychosocial and medical needs.
|
CRCS combines traditional case management and HIV risk-reduction in an individualized, client-centered program which focuses on the reduction of risk behavior and addresses a client's psychosocial and medical needs.CRCS focuses on seven core elements: recruitment and engagement; screening, enrolling, and assessing; prevention planning; risk reduction counseling; referrals and service coordination; monitoring; and discharge and maintenance.
These core elements represent the framework of the intervention, and provide enough flexibility to allow implementation that most appropriately serves the needs of clients.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in HIV Transmission Risk
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Ordinal measure of HIV transmission risk.
The ordinal measure is constructed from information provided by the participant on the last five sexual encounters during the prior 30 days, with the highest risk assigned to encounters involving discordant anal/vaginal intercourse, unprotected, with a discordant partner (XEF)
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in the number of family members to whom participants have disclosed their positive serostatus
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
At baseline, the ASSIS interview tool is used to identify participants' family members who do not know the participants' serostatus.
During the study period, they will report any of these family members to whom they disclosure their serostatus (i.e., the status of disclosure has changed from "not disclosed to" to "disclosed to")
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in the odds of disclosure to sex partners
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Participants will indicate, for each of their last 5 encounters, whether or not they disclosed their serostatus to sex partners (DPA)
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in the proportion of sex partners disclosed to
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Participants will indicate the number of sex partners disclosed to during the prior 30 days (DBC)
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in depression score (CES-D)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Participants provide depression scores on the 20-item Center for Epidemeologic Studies Depression Scale
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in anxiety score (CAS)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Anxiety assessed with the 9-item Costello-Comrey Anxiety Scale.
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in self-esteem score (SERS)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Self-esteem assessed with the 40-item Self-Esteem Rating Scale.
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in coping score (WCI)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Coping assessed with the 50-item Ways of Coping Inventory
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in HIV Stigma score (STG)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
HIV Stigma assessed with the 40-item HIV Stigma scale
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in health (MDH)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
General health and physical functioning assessed with the 21-item Multidimensional Health Scale
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Change from baseline to 52 weeks in unprotected anal intercourse
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Participants are asked to provide the number of sexual encounters involving unprotected anal intercourse during the prior 30 day period (XBC)
|
Baseline, Week 7, Week 12, Week 24, Week 52
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Julianne M Serovich, PhD, University of South Florida
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
- MH097486
- R01MH097486 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on HIV Risk Reduction
-
University of RochesterNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)Completed
-
Yale UniversityCompleted
-
University of Southern CaliforniaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention; Charles Drew University of Medicine...CompletedHIV | Risk Reduction BehaviorUnited States
-
Charite University, Berlin, GermanyRecruitingAnesthesiological Risk Reduction | Intensive Care Risk ReductionGermany
-
Per HallCompletedRisk Reduction | Mammographic Density Reduction
-
University of ConnecticutNational Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)CompletedRisk Reduction | HIV-1 Infection
-
University of California, San FranciscoUniversity of Stellenbosch; University of Cape TownRecruitingRisk ReductionSouth Africa
-
Stanford UniversityNot yet recruitingRisk ReductionUnited States
-
University of Maryland, BaltimoreCompleted
-
Chinese University of Hong KongUniversity of TorontoCompleted
Clinical Trials on Maybe, Maybe Not
-
University of ManchesterRecruitingDementia | Abuse Client | Neglect; Care, MalnutritionUnited Kingdom
-
Johns Hopkins UniversityTruth InitiativeCompleted
-
The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow UniversityRecruitingHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation | NutritionChina
-
Acute Leukemia French AssociationCompletedAcute Myeloblastic Leukemia Core Binding FactorFrance
-
National Research Center for Preventive MedicineCompletedAdherence, PatientRussian Federation
-
Nantes University HospitalUnknownBullous Pemphigoid | Immunotherapy | Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1France
-
Göteborg UniversityCompleted
-
St. Antonius HospitalCompletedMicrocirculationNetherlands
-
Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del BajioRecruiting
-
The University of Hong KongFood and Health Bureau, Hong Kong GovernmentActive, not recruiting