Perceived risks and benefits of enrolling people with HIV at the end of life in cure research in Southern California, United States.
Altruism
End of life
HIV cure Research
Last gift
Perceived benefits
Perceived risks
Socio-behavioral research
Journal
Journal of virus eradication
ISSN: 2055-6640
Titre abrégé: J Virus Erad
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101654142
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
04
03
2023
accepted:
30
05
2023
medline:
13
7
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
13
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although current antiretroviral therapy allows most people with HIV (PWH) to experience normal longevity with a good quality of life, an HIV cure remains elusive due to HIV reservoir formation within deep tissues. An HIV cure remains highly desirable to the community of PWH. This study reports on the perceived risks and benefits of participation in the Last Gift study, a study aimed at characterizing HIV reservoirs via post-mortem autopsy, among PWH at the end of life (EOL) and their next-of-kin (NOK)/loved ones. Last Gift participants (PWH with a terminal illness and/or near the end of life) and their NOK/loved ones were surveyed for perceptions of risks, benefits, and meaning for participation in the Last Gift study. The average age of the 17 Last Gift participants was 66.6 years, 3 were females, 1 person identified as Hispanic, and 15 as Caucasian. The average age of the 17 NOK/loved ones was 56.7 years, and relationships to Last Gift participants included partner/spouse, sibling, friend, child, parent, grandparent, and nephew. The only perceived personal risk of the Last Gift among participants was the blood draws (3/17). NOK/loved ones perceived the following risks: blood draws (2/17), physical pain (3/17), worry that something bad will happen (2/17), and unpleasant side effects (1/17). Participants in Last Gift and NOK/loved ones indicated the study had various positive social effects. For both participants and NOK/loved ones, the most frequent perceived personal benefit of the Last Gift was the satisfaction of supporting HIV cure research. Participants perceived minimal personal and societal risks and valued the altruistic benefits of participating in the Last Gift study. Last Gift participants and NOK/loved ones were cautious about possible personal risks of EOL HIV cure research but still viewed that the emotional, psychological and societal benefits of participation outweighed potential risks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37440872
doi: 10.1016/j.jve.2023.100328
pii: S2055-6640(23)00014-6
pmc: PMC10334343
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100328Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Dec;36(12):1033-1046
pubmed: 32449624
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69(6):1063-1067
pubmed: 30715211
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 23;13(7):e0199670
pubmed: 30036365
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2019 Jan;35(1):100-107
pubmed: 30009625
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):493-496
pubmed: 32023370
J Virus Erad. 2020 Aug 25;6(4):100008
pubmed: 33294210
J Med Ethics. 2018 Apr;44(4):270-276
pubmed: 29127137
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Oct 20;19(1):83
pubmed: 30342507
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Mar;22(3):e25260
pubmed: 30869203
Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):570-3
pubmed: 15170195
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 18;15(11):e0242420
pubmed: 33206710
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2022 Aug;38(8):670-682
pubmed: 35778845
JAMA. 2000 Nov 15;284(19):2476-82
pubmed: 11074777
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Apr;36(4):324-348
pubmed: 31608651
Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Nov;16(4):857-64
pubmed: 23539332
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Apr;36(4):268-282
pubmed: 32160755
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 May;41(3):13-22
pubmed: 31108576
AIDS. 2020 Jun 1;34(7):1089-1092
pubmed: 32287073
J Med Ethics. 2017 Feb;43(2):124-127
pubmed: 27590492
J Pediatr. 1999 Feb;134(2):130-1
pubmed: 9931513
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Dec;36(12):1071-1082
pubmed: 32449625
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2011 Jun;21(2):141-79
pubmed: 21696094
N Engl J Med. 1998 Mar 26;338(13):853-60
pubmed: 9516219
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0254148
pubmed: 34270612
AIDS. 2017 Jan 2;31(1):1-4
pubmed: 27755112
J Med Ethics. 2017 Feb;43(2):78-81
pubmed: 27143494
Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2022 Dec;19(6):566-579
pubmed: 36260191
J Med Ethics. 2017 Feb;43(2):100-103
pubmed: 28062651
Nat Med. 2005 Nov;11(11):1145-9
pubmed: 16270065
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2022 Jun;38(6):510-517
pubmed: 35323030
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 25;12(1):e0170112
pubmed: 28122027
Lancet HIV. 2019 Mar;6(3):e147-e149
pubmed: 30772419
Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Oct;34(10):1010-1014
pubmed: 27617737
Gerontologist. 2002 Oct;42 Spec No 3:86-98
pubmed: 12415138
Lancet. 2013 Nov 2;382(9903):1525-33
pubmed: 24152939
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2018 Jan;34(1):56-66
pubmed: 29198134
J Med Ethics. 2023 May;49(5):305-310
pubmed: 35732421
J Med Ethics. 2017 Feb;43(2):90-95
pubmed: 27364537
Nurs Clin North Am. 2018 Mar;53(1):123-135
pubmed: 29362056
J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr 1;130(4):1699-1712
pubmed: 31910162
PLoS One. 2021 May 7;16(5):e0250882
pubmed: 33961653
Account Res. 2012;19(1):1-12
pubmed: 22268501