Search

Health policies and the problems they constitute are deeply shaped by multiple publics. In this article we conceptualize health policy counterpublics : temporally bounded socio-political forms that aim to cultivate particular modes of conduct, generally to resist trajectories set by arms of the state. These counterpublics often emerge from existing social movements and involve varied forms of activism and advocacy. We examine a health policy counterpublic that has arisen in response to new forms of HIV public health surveillance by drawing on public documents and interview data from 2021 with 26 stakeholders who were critical of key policy developments. Since 2018, the national rollout of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs in the United States has produced sustained controversies among HIV stakeholders, including among organized networks of people living with HIV. This article focuses on how a health policy counterpublic formed around MHS/CDR and how constituents problematized the policy agenda set in motion by federal health agencies, including in relation to data ethics, the meaningful involvement of affected communities, informed consent, the digitization of health systems, and HIV criminalization. Although familiar problems in HIV policymaking, concerns about these issues have been reconfigured in response to the new sociotechnical milieu proffered by MHS/CDR, generating new critical positions aiming to remake public health. Critical attention to the scenes within which health policy controversies play out ought to consider how (counter)publics are made, how problems are constituted, and the broader social movement dynamics and activist resources drawn upon to contest and reimagine policymaking in public life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders. In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues. Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used. MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Australia, the response to HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B has largely been through the constructed category of 'blood borne viruses' which treats these viruses as an interconnected set of conditions with respect to their mode of transmission. In this paper, we explore how people understand their viral infection, and compare the logics underpinning these different understandings. In-depth interviews were conducted with 61 participants who were either living with a blood borne virus or were the family members of people living with them. Our analysis reveals that the viral infection was often described as 'just a condition that needs to be managed', albeit in potentially exhausting ways. This understanding hinged upon a biomedical logic in which viral invasion was seen as causing illness and in turn necessitating biomedical intervention. In contrast, some participants with hepatitis B presented their infection as a condition unintelligible through Western biomedical logics, defined instead by symptomology – in terms of 'liver disease', and/or 'liver inflammation'. This focus on symptomology calls into question the soundness of prevention and management responses to hepatitis B based in biomedical logics and reveals the extent to which living with a virus involves multiple, sometimes incompatible, cultural logics. The different logics underpinning HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B reveal shortcomings of framing these viruses together as a coherent single construct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recognition of the broader relational aspects of viral infections, family support is considered important when someone is diagnosed with a blood-borne virus (BBV), such as HIV, hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis B (HBV). However, families' own support needs are often not a priority in service provision within the BBV sector. In this article, we draw on qualitative interviews with 20 key informants working in various professional capacities in health, social policy, care and advocacy sectors in Australia, and explore their experiences and perspectives on family inclusivity in their services. Overall, key informants acknowledged the diversity of what constitutes family, and consistently viewed family engagement as beneficial to both diagnosed individuals and the wider familial networks affected by a diagnosis. However, prioritising individual care in support services presented barriers to engaging families, which are further complicated by the role of stigma in shaping the social realities of living with a BBV. Increasing understanding in service provision settings that serodiscordance can be a family experience has the potential to widen this analytic lens to consider the support needs of families in their own right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the development and implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the characteristics of PrEP users have been configured in a range of ways. Drawing on the concept of 'imaginaries', we consider how clinicians imagine PrEP users and related communities. We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews in 2019–2020 with PrEP-providing clinicians based in New South Wales and Western Australia. Participants included general practitioners, sexual health nurses and sexual health doctors. We inductively developed three themes through a reflexive thematic analysis: 'PrEP users as 99% gay men/MSM', 'The informed and connected PrEP user', and 'Condom users in the PrEP era'. Participants imagined PrEP users primarily as gay men, and so we focused on how gay community was imagined in relation to PrEP users. Users were imagined as supporting one another to use PrEP effectively, but some were imagined as threatening norms of condom use amongst gay community. Analysing clinician imaginaries of PrEP users reveals insight into how clinicians speculate about and engage with changing community norms related to condom use and accessing PrEP. These imaginaries reveal ongoing tensions about who is believed to be best suited to PrEP, and PrEP's impact on norms of conduct in imagined biosocial communities like gay men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary sociological work has emphasised that family is not static, but actively shaped by ideas of who and what makes family. Disclosure of an illness, including diagnosis of stigmatised infections such as HIV, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, can change the dynamics of family relationships. This paper draws on 61 qualitative semi‐structured interviews conducted between 2017 and 2019 with people in Australia with one or more of these blood‐borne viruses (BBVs) and their family members, to understand the experiences of serodiscordant (mixed viral status) families. Through a thematic analysis, we explore the family imaginaries that participants evoked when describing their disclosure practices in relation to (self‐defined) family members, revealing how some participants disclosed in ways that enabled them to shape their family, to maintain boundaries between self and family or to protect family from distress. Participants' accounts of disclosure to family revealed imaginaries of family as a precious web of connections to be nurtured or protected, but also as sites of ambivalent belonging and complex history. We conclude that BBV disclosure practices within families reveal important ideas about families that are imagined in response to the threat of loss, change and stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been rapidly implemented in Australia, initially through restricted access in demonstration studies, and then through prescribing across sexual health clinics and general practice settings. In 2018, PrEP was publicly subsidised for people with Medicare (universal health insurance for citizens, permanent residents and those from countries with reciprocal arrangements). There is little research examining the experiences of PrEP providers in Australia, and existing research has been primarily conducted before public subsidy.Methods: In this qualitative study, we examine the challenges that have emerged for PrEP-providing clinicians after public subsidy for PrEP was introduced. We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews in 2019-20 with PrEP providers in two Australian states, and analysed data thematically. Participants included general practitioners (GPs), sexual health nurses and sexual health physicians.Results: Sexual health services have been reconfigured to meet changing patient demand, with an emphasis on ensuring equitable financial access to PrEP. Restrictions to nurse-led PrEP frustrated some participants, given that nurses had demonstrated competence during trials. GPs were believed to be less effective at prescribing PrEP, but GP participants themselves indicated that PrEP was an easy intervention, but difficult to integrate into general practice. Participants expressed discomfort with on-demand PrEP.Conclusions: Our findings indicate that supporting ways for patients without Medicare to access PrEP inexpensively, advocating for nurse-led PrEP, and developing guidelines adapted to general practice consultations could ensure that PrEP is delivered more effectively and equitably. Additionally, PrEP providers require encouragement to build confidence in providing on-demand PrEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]