Skip to content

Digital Intervention to Address Stigma Among Pregnant Adolescents Living With HIV

Development of a Digital Intervention to Address Stigma Among Pregnant Unmarried Adolescents Living With HIV

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05383755
Enrollment
169
Registered
2022-05-20
Start date
2022-03-30
Completion date
2023-12-14
Last updated
2026-02-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

HIV, Mother to Child Transmission, Pregnancy in Adolescence, Self Disclosure, Social Stigma

Keywords

HIV, Adolescent, Social Stigma, Mother-to-Child Transmission, Pregnancy in Adolescence, Software, Parents, Caregivers, Prevention, Self Disclosure, Cell Phone, Self Efficacy

Brief summary

Pregnant adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) in Kenya frequently experience stigma and difficulty telling a family member about their HIV and pregnancy status. This study will develop and evaluate a digital intervention for pregnant unmarried ALHIV to address the effects of stigma and strengthen communication skills. Family caregivers are an important yet underappreciated and understudied source of social support for pregnant unmarried ALHIV. The study will also identify acceptable approaches to involve family caregivers in addressing the detrimental effects of the intersecting stigmas faced by pregnant ALHIV. Together, these approaches are expected to improve engagement in PMTCT services among pregnant ALHIV. The study specific aims are to: (1) Develop and evaluate a digital intervention for pregnant unmarried ALHIV aged 15-19 to increase awareness of stigma and its consequences; improve disclosure self-efficacy and skills; and facilitate enlistment of family caregivers as social support allies to enhance uptake of PMTCT services; and (2) Identify acceptable approaches to increase awareness about stigma and enhance skills in communication and provision of social support among family caregivers. We will use data from individual interviews with pregnant ALHIV and joint interviews with pregnant ALHIV/caregiver dyads to develop initial intervention specifications and mock-ups. We will then conduct focus groups to obtain feedback on sample materials in order to refine the materials and develop an intervention prototype. We will then conduct a pilot to evaluate acceptability, usability, and preliminary efficacy of the prototype. All participating adolescents will receive a session in using the digital intervention with a mobile phone or tablet. The research team will ask questions both before the session and two weeks after the session in order to assess the intervention's usability and acceptability and preliminary improvements in the adolescents regarding stigma, disclosure, and social support. We will conduct focus groups with caregivers to identify acceptable approaches to involve them. Data will be used to finalize content and specifications of the digital intervention for pregnant ALHIV and will provide the framework for a future complementary intervention for caregivers, which will both be tested in a larger R34 or R01 trial.

Detailed description

Our two-year study consisted of qualitative approaches for intervention development, and a single arm pre/post pilot study to assess the newly developed intervention's acceptability, usability, and preliminary efficacy (Aim 1). We also conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) with family caregivers to identify acceptable approaches to strengthen their supportive roles (Aim 2). For Aim 1, multi-methods were used spanning three phases: (1) in-depth interviews (IDIs) with pregnant adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) and dyadic interviews (DIs) with ALHIV/caregiver pairs; (2) FGDs with ALHIV and (3) a pilot study with ALHIV. In the pilot study, we evaluated our newly developed digital intervention for pregnant adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) in Kenya (N = 30). The intervention was designed to increase awareness of stigma regarding HIV and pregnancy, improve disclosure self-efficacy skills, and facilitate enlistment of family members as social support allies. The goal of the intervention was to enhance uptake of services for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT). Using a single pre-post intervention group quasi-experimental design, the study assessed usability, acceptability, and preliminary improvements in stigma, disclosure, and social support measures. All participants received the intervention. The adolescents included in the pilot study were female, living with HIV, pregnant, unmarried, ages 15-19 years old. We included both rural and urban youth. There were two contacts with study participants. At the first contact, all participants were consented, completed a baseline quantitative survey, and received the intervention. During the intervention session, they were provided with a mobile phone/tablet with internet access, guided on how to access the digital intervention, received a guided tour of the website, and had their questions answered. After the tour, they were asked to review the intervention content. After reviewing the intervention content, participants completed a quantitative survey assessing the intervention's acceptability and usability. At the second contact, two weeks after the intervention session, follow up survey data was collected to assess maintenance/persistence of intervention effects after a short duration exposure. Survey measures at baseline and two-week follow up included demographics, stigma about HIV and pregnancy, disclosure self-efficacy for HIV and pregnancy, and disclosure of HIV and pregnancy to caregivers. Descriptive analyses were conducted of the quantitative data to describe time-related patterns and assess clinically meaningful improvements in our measures.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALDigital intervention for pregnant adolescents living with HIV

The newly developed digital intervention uses illustrative characters to deliver didactic content to (1) raise awareness about stigma and its effects and understanding of disclosure and social support's importance, (2) increase self-efficacy and communication skills for disclosure and enlistment of caregivers as social support allies, and (3) tell stories to demonstrate how peers in similar situations have successfully coped with stigma, disclosed their pregnancies and/or HIV, and sought support from caregivers. Each module takes 20-30 minutes to complete.

Sponsors

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Lead SponsorOTHER
Kenya Medical Research Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
3-C Institute for Social Development
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Fogarty International Center of the National Institute of Health
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

The newly developed digital intervention uses illustrative characters to deliver didactic content to (1) raise awareness about stigma and its effects and understanding of disclosure and social support's importance, (2) increase self-efficacy and communication skills for disclosure and enlistment of caregivers as social support allies, and (3) tell stories to demonstrate how peers in similar situations have successfully coped with stigma, disclosed their pregnancies and/or HIV, and sought support from caregivers. Each module takes 20-30 minutes to complete.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
15 Years to 19 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

for adolescent participants: * Female * Living with HIV * Pregnant * Unmarried * 15-19 years old

Exclusion criteria

for all participants: * Does not meet all inclusion criteria * Participated in a prior study activity * Does not show adequate understanding of consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
User Version Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) - Objective Quality MeasureImmediately post-intervention approximately 10 minutesAim 1 Phase 3 Acceptability of Final Prototype. Quantitative measure adapted for this study; overall objective quality (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information); self-report survey items assessing overall objective quality of the digital intervention. Scale title: Adapted User version Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Low quality=1, High quality =5). App objective quality mean scores Min=4.25, Max=5.00. Higher scores mean perception of higher quality.
User Version Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) - Subjective Quality Measure (Composite Measure)Immediately post-intervention approximately 10 minutesAim 1 Phase 3 Acceptability of Final Prototype. Quantitative data; overall subjective quality; self-report survey items assessing overall subjective quality of the digital intervention. Scale title: Adapted User version Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Low quality=1, High quality =5). App subjective quality mean scores: Min=3.67, Max=5.00. Higher scores indicate perception of higher quality.
HIV/AIDS Stigma Instrument - People Living With HIV (PWLA)Two weeks post-interventionAim 1 Phase 3. Change in perception of experienced stigma (e.g., "Someone stopped being my friend.") (Never, Once or twice, Several times, Most of the time)(14 summed items; scale score range 0-42 with higher values indicating more stigma)
Internalized Pregnancy-Related Stigma ScaleTwo weeks post-interventionAim 1 Phase 3. Change in internalized pregnancy-related stigma among adolescents. Example item:"Becoming pregnant and having a baby as a teen makes me feel ashamed and bad about myself;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree) (4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma). Adapted for pregnancy-related stigma from the Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale.
Self-efficacy to Make an Effective Decision to Disclose HIV StatusTwo weeks post-interventionAim 1 Phase 3. Change in the respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose HIV status to a family member. Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are HIV-positive?" (1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.
Self-efficacy to Make an Effective Decision to Disclose PregnancyTwo weeks post-interventionAim 1 Phase 3. Change in respondent's confidence in making an effective decision to disclose pregnancy to a family member. Question Item: "How confident are you that you could make an effective decision of whether to tell a family member that you are pregnant?" (1 item, 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do; higher scores mean higher confidence). Adapted from self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose HIV status.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Self-efficacy for Knowing it is Safe to Disclose HIV StatusTwo weeks post-interventionMeasures respondent's confidence in knowing when it is safe to disclose HIV status to a family member. Question Item: "How confident are you that you could know whether it was safe to tell a family member parent that you are HIV-positive?" (1 item; 11-pt scale: 0-10; 0=cannot do, 10=certain can do). Higher scores mean more confidence.
Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma ScaleTwo weeks post-interventionChange in internalized HIV-related stigma (or self-stigma) among adolescents (e.g., "You feel guilty that you are HIV positive;" Response Options: Agree, Disagree). (4 summed items; scale score range 0-4 with higher values indicating more stigma)
Response to Stress Questionnaire - HIV/AIDS Stigma: Disengaging Coping SubscaleTwo weeks post-interventionChange in respondent's use of avoidance, denial, and wishful thinking to cope with the stigma of HIV/AIDS (e.g. "I try not to think about the stigma of living with HIV. I try to forget all about it;" Response Options: Not at all, A little, Some, A lot). (4 summed items; score range 4-16 with higher values indicating poorer coping)
Qualitative Theme, Disclosure Experiences. Sub-Theme: Direct DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent directly informs her caregiver that she is pregnant and/or living with HIV.
Qualitative Theme, Disclosure Experiences. Sub-Theme: Indirect DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescent makes no direct effort to reveal her status.
Qualitative Theme, Disclosure Experiences. Sub-Theme: Caregiver Initiated DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.
Qualitative Theme, Disclosure Experiences. Sub-Theme: Mediated DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Caregiver informs the adolescent or otherwise initiates a discussion that reveals the status.
Qualitative Theme, Disclosure Experiences. Sub-Theme: Accidental DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: The disclosure occurs though it was unintended by the adolescent.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Stigma. Sub-Theme: HIV-Related Stigma Worse Than Pregnancy-Related StigmaSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with pregnancy.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Stigma. Sub-Theme: Pregnancy-Related Stigma is Worse Than HIV-Related StigmaSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that pregnancy-related stigma is worse than stigma associated with HIV.
Qualitative Theme, Perspectives About Stigma. Sub-Theme: HIV-Related and Pregnancy-Related Stigma Equally BadSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents who made statements suggesting that HIV- and pregnancy-related stigma are equally bad.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: No Support ReceivedSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who noted having not received support (e.g., money, food, clothing, encouragement, emotional support, etc.) that they needed.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: Support Improved After Pregnancy DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing their pregnancies.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: Support Worsened After Pregnancy DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing their pregnancies.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: Support Improved After HIV DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received improved after disclosing HIV.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: Support Worsened After HIV DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who thought the social support they received worsened after disclosing HIV.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: No Change in Support After Pregnancy DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed their pregnancy.
Qualitative Theme, Perceptions About Social Support. Sub-Theme: No Change in Support After HIV DisclosureSingle interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected during Aim 1 Phase 1. Responses from adolescents concerning their experiences and thoughts about social support received before and after their disclosure of HIV and/or pregnancy. Measure Definition: Adolescents who reported no change regarding the social support they received after having disclosed HIV.
Qualitative Theme: Number of Adolescents Who Reported That Their Caregivers Were Aware About Their Pregnancy at Time of Their Interview.Single interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of the interview, their primary caregiver knew about their pregnancy.
Qualitative Theme: Number of Adolescents Who Reported That Their Caregivers Were Aware About Their HIV Status at Time of Their Interview.Single interviews were done during Aim 1 Phase 1 over a 4-month period (April - July 2022). Each interview lasted about 1 hour.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 1. Measure Definition: Adolescents reported whether, at the time of their interview, their primary caregiver knew about their HIV status.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Colors UsedFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Adolescent CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1, Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Healthcare Provider CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Sister CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Mother CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Father CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Brother CharacterFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Home BackgroundFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: Health Facility BackgroundFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: StoryFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Acceptability of Initial Prototype: MessageFocus groups for Aim 1 Phase 2 were done over a 2-month period (May - June 2023). Participants took part in one focus group. Focus groups lasted on average 1 hour and 40 minutes.Data were collected for Aim 1 Phase 2. Four focus groups conducted with N=22 adolescents in total. Participants began by individually reviewing the initial prototype using a tablet and then used a rating form to share their perspectives about various features of the prototype. Intervention features rated by participants included color scheme, characters, backgrounds, story, and message. The rating form provided a star ranking system ranging from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The rating form was created specifically for this study.
Qualitative Theme, Caregivers' Perceptions About Engaging Them: Liked Idea of App for CaregiversFocus groups were done during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2 in June and December 2023. Caregivers took part in one focus group. Each focus group lasted 2 hours.Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who liked the idea of developing a similar digital intervention (i.e., an "App") for caregivers.
Qualitative Theme, Caregivers' Perceptions About Engaging Them: Preferred Engagement in Group SettingFocus groups were done during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2 in June and December 2023. Caregivers took part in one focus group. Each focus group lasted 2 hours.Data were collected during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.
Qualitative Theme, Caregivers' Perceptions About Engaging Them: Preferred Engagement Via Written MediaFocus groups were done during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2 in June and December 2023. Caregivers took part in one focus group. Each focus group lasted 2 hours.Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a group setting as an alternative to using an App.
Qualitative Theme, Caregivers' Perceptions About Engaging Them: Preferred Engagement Via Radio Advertisements.Focus groups were done during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2 in June and December 2023. Caregivers took part in one focus group. Each focus group lasted 2 hours.Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged via radio advertisements as an alternative to using an App.
Qualitative Theme, Caregivers' Perceptions About Engaging Them: Preferred Engagement in Healthcare Setting.Focus groups were done during Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2 in June and December 2023. Caregivers took part in one focus group. Each focus group lasted 2 hours.Data were collected for Aim 2 Rounds 1 and 2. Frequencies of responses from caregivers concerning the intervention prototype and a potential complementary digital intervention for caregivers from four focus groups which included a total of 47 caregivers. Measure Definition: Caregivers who preferred to be engaged in a healthcare setting as an alternative to using an App.

Countries

Kenya

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORWinfred (Winnie) K. Luseno, PhD

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Adolescents and caregivers were recruited with assistance from providers at health clinics.

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age, Continuous17.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.3
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Short Form 10 (CES-D 10)7.52 scale score
Family social support17.31 scale score
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale 7 Items (GAD 7)5.03 scale score
HIV/AIDS Stigma Instrument - People Living with HIV (PWLA)2.59 scale score
Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale1 scale score
Internalized Pregnancy-Related Stigma Scale1.34 scale score
Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support54.41 scale score
Number of participants who report difficulty in disclosing HIV status24 Participants
Number of participants who report difficulty in disclosing pregnancy22 Participants
Pregnancy-Related Experienced Stigma Scale2.14 scale score
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black African (Kenyan)
29 Participants
Response to Stress Questionnaire - HIV/AIDS Stigma: Disengaging Coping Subscale8 scale score
Response to Stress Questionnaire - Pregnancy Stigma: Disengaging Coping Subscale7.07 scale score
Self-efficacy for knowing it is safe to disclose HIV status6.24 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.75
Self-efficacy for knowing it is safe to disclose pregnancy5.52 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.76
Self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose HIV status6.28 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4
Self-efficacy to make an effective decision to disclose pregnancy5.10 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.79
Sex: Female, Male
Female
29 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 169
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 169
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 169

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 4, 2026