Examining the Acceptability of a Resilience Building Intervention Among Adults Aging With HIV.
Pariya L Fazeli, Cierra N Hopkins, Andrea Wells and 4 others
PMID 33427766WHAT IT FOUND
14 adults aging with HIV found a resilience video program acceptable and useful, but wanted more interactive discussion, realistic diverse examples, and in-person delivery.
This shows what to adapt, not that the program improves outcomes.
Key findings
01Participants rated the program 8.71 of 10, and 79%, 86%, and 93% reported perceived benefits in resilience, mood, and HIV management; tools for aging successfully; and healthy lifestyle behaviors, respectively.
02Participants wanted more interactive discussion and everyday HIV-related examples, such as medication and appointment adherence.
03No participant wanted home computer delivery; participants preferred individually at a research center, in groups at a research center, or in groups at a clinic.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 14 participants were studied, all cisgender adults living in the Deep South, largely with low income, so feedback may not apply to other regions, genders, sexual orientations, or income groups. The study did not collect sexual orientation data, so the sample cannot be described on that factor. There was no control group and no formal efficacy outcome; participants' reports of feeling more resilient, better able to manage HIV, or more likely to use healthy behaviors were self-reported after a single session. The intervention was given as one about 3.5-hour session rather than the previously used four weekly 1- to 2-hour sessions, so feedback may reflect this compressed format. There was no group discussion and minimal facilitator involvement, so preferences for interactive or clinic-based delivery may be influenced by the study format. Follow-up was only about 1 week after the session, and continued use was a single self-report item.
Declared interests
The authors reported no real or perceived vested interests. The parent study is identified as NIH R00AG048762.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 79%, 86%, and 93% perceived benefit ratings as proof the program works. They were self-reported after one 3.5-hour session in 14 participants, with no control group.