1

Evidence to Policy to Practicein Gay Men’s HIV Prevention in Ontario

Presentation to OHTN 2009Summer Learning Institute

James Murray, Senior Program Consultant, AIDS BureauOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/hivaids/aids_mn.html

July 14, 2009

2

Your questions…

How do I get research off the shelf and informing policies and programs?

What are some examples of successful knowledge-transfer and exchange activities?

3

…in the context of two recent Ontario examples of research linked to policy and programs

What constitutes policy development in the context of HIV prevention policy and programs targeted to gay and bisexual men? And, where do we KTE?

What constitutes evidence in the context of government HIV prevention policy for gay men in Ontario?

What are some possible insights for researchers interested in producing knowledge that gets integrated into policy and practice?

4

What do we mean by the policy development process?

I might be wrong, you might be right, and together by an effort we may get closer to the truth.

- Sir Karl Popper

5

What constitutes ‘evidence’?

Research

Broader community survey’s (Toronto Pride Survey 2005; Ontario Men’s Survey; M-track)

Population-specific studies (Mabwana Black Men’s Study; Gay, Bi, Queer Trans Men’s Needs Assessment)

Intervention research (GPS: POZ Prevention Intervention Study; Towel Talk)

Other community research (Toronto Crystal Meth Study; ACAS focus groups with HIV positive gay men)

Trends in research over time or a body of evidence

6

What constitutes ‘evidence’?

Professional experiences of people working in HIV/AIDS

Anecdotal experiences of people living with HIV and people at real risk of acquiring HIV

knowledge or understanding produced through a multi-stakeholder dialogue that integrates research, professional knowledge, and anecdotal experience

7

Story #1: Harm Reduction in Ottawa

In 2007, Ottawa City Council made political decision to discontinue funding to Ottawa Public Health in support of the distribution of safer crack use materials

Much community advocacy began, media attention focused on the issue, and it became something that quickly moved to the radar of the minister

As part of the process, Hepatitis C Task Force and Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS wrote a joint letter to minister outlining research evidence in support of the harm reduction measures to assist people who smoke crack to avoid infectious disease

8

How did research inform this process?

The letter is initially written by civil servants and vetted by key stakeholders (experts within our multi-stakeholder advisory committee’s)

We were able to quickly gather supporting research by contacting Lynne Leonard, a researcher for whom we have a pre-existing and ongoing relationship

Had we not had the pre-existing relationship with Lynne, stakeholders on our advisory committee’s would have known key contacts to gather the evidence

9

Research connected to policy

“An evaluation of Ottawa’s Safer Crack Use Initiative in 2006 by Lynne Leonard and her team at the University of Ottawa indicated the following positive benefits:

• A reduction in the sharing of drug use equipment. The proportion of people sharing pipes ‘every time’ declined from 37% in the six months before the program began to 31% in the first, one-month follow-up post-implementation evaluation, to 12% at six-months and 13% in the twelve month post-implementation assessment.

• A marginal decline in the proportion of participants reporting the presence of oral sores.

• Evidence of change in drug use behavior, with some people reporting transitioning from injecting to smoking. Prior to implementation, 96% of injection drug users reported injecting in the month prior to the initiative compared with 84% at one-month into implementation and 78% at six months and twelve months into implementation. At the same time, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of crack smoking among people who inject drugs, from 77% of injection drug users reporting crack smoking pre-implementation, to 86% at one-month into the program, 89% at six months, and 93% at twelve months post-implementation.”

10

Outcome The program was funded by the ministry of health and is being

delivered through a community agency in Ottawa

Political advocacy and agitation and media attention brought import to the issue politically

The research evidence was available to the minister as he made his decision; we (civil service) were able to access relevant, local evidence quickly because of our relationship to researchers and knowledge of their work, and because of an infrastructure that creates a network of key stakeholders, including researchers, to inform the process

People in Ottawa who smoke crack have a means of obtaining materials to assist them in avoiding infectious disease, reducing their likelihood of injecting (an activity with potentially greater health harms) and connecting them to service providers

11

Story #2:

The Gay Men’s Sexual Health Alliance is a provincial coalition of gay men and their allies from community-based AIDS service organizations, public health, HIV researchers, policy makers and other community members.

12

GMSH Mission

To foster a systematic, evidence-informed, skilled, consistent and effective response to the sexual health needs of Ontario’s diverse communities of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men.

To reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and improve our overall health and well-being.

13

Support front-line work:Build capacity over-time and keep it (research, best-

practice in serving gay/MSM) reduce isolation; support each other through

networking and collaboration

Provide a framework to support multi-stakeholder collaboration in prevention policy/program planning and delivery

Support longer-term thinking and planning

14

KTE Strategies of the GMSH

Ontario Gay Men’s Sexual Health Summit

Internal GMSH website

E-blasts

Working Groups

Collaboration and partnership

15

KTE Strategies of the GMSH

Commissioned by GMSH to provide baseline knowledge of literature

Been shared widely

Used as part of information to set priorities for GMSH work

16

Research informing policy: GMSH Strategic PlanExample: POZ Prevention

Maintain a POZ Prevention Working Group

Define ‘Poz prevention’

Develop a poz prevention service provider manual

Develop a sexual health guide for HIV positive gay men

Develop a legal guidebook for HIV positive gay men

Address HIV stigma

17

Research to policy to practice: Campaigns

18

19

How did we get to the campaign?

Provincial Advisory Body, Campaign Working Group, POZ Prevention Working Group

Environmental scan

POZ Prevention values and principles

‘Be Real’ evaluation

Situation Report informed priorities in our logic model

Research looking at sexual/social networksshared/silent assumptions, and the social environment

19

20

Ontario Gay Men’s HIV Prevention Interventions/Campaign – Logic ModelOntario Gay Men’s HIV Prevention Interventions/Campaign – Logic Model

Key Objectives:Empower Gay men to

assist them to become aware of and take action on the factors that contribute

to better sexual health outcomes and HIV risk

Such as:

Outputs on:1. Personal 2. Interpersonal3. Organizational4. Community5. Society

Short Term Outcomes (1 to 3 years)

Gay men have access to and awareness of tools and resources to address the impact of :

Intermediate Outcomes

(3 to 7 years)

Long Term Outcomes(7 to 10 years)

On an annual or as needed basis and within the framework of the strategic plan of the Ontario Gay Men’s HIV Prevention Strategy, translate evidence and knowledge collected from the inputs into HIV prevention interventions and campaigns and develop and advise on dissemination strategies of those

to the PAB.

Substance use

Social isolation andmental health issuessuch as depression

Environments andsocial networks

Erectile difficultiesand other issues

around problematic condom use

1. Resources developed and distributed, increased knowledge for risk reduction in the priority areas2. Resources developed and distributed, increased knowledge around communication, relationships, attitudes and assumptions3. Intervention design, implementation and promotion, Knowledge transfer and exchange, Annual Summit and Conferences, Education and

training on skills and tools development, Community based research on risk behaviours and risk factors, organizational capacity assessment and increased capacity of ASO’s and other orgs addressing HIV prevention, Best Practice Reviews, Research and Literature Review

4. Partnerships with Public Health and private business, Campaigns, Community Forums, Media Strategies5. Advocacy on the Social and Systemic Factors affecting gay men such as homophobia, AIDS stigma and discrimination

Goal

Strategy contributes to the yearly decline in new HIV infections in Ontario and improved HIV Prevention and Support systems and healthier communities, environments and society for gay men.

Increased Practice of Healthy Behaviours;Improved Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention Tools, Knowledge, Skills, Treatment and Support

Improved Health Status of Gay Men with or Vulnerable to HIV; and improved and increased skills and responses available to people working in HIV Prevention and Support

UAI in the context of sophisticated sero-sorting and

conflicting assumptionsabout risk factors

Environments andsocial networks on their sexual

health

Substance use ontheir sexual health

Social isolation andmental health issuessuch as depression

on their sexual health

UAI in the context of sophisticated sero-sorting and conflicting assumptions about risk factors on their sexual health

erectile difficultiesand other issues

around problematic condom use on

their sexual health

Inputs

PAB Strategic Plan, Gay Summit KTE activities and evaluation, OChart and Logic Model data, Be Real, ACCHO and Assumptions Campaigns Evaluation, Provincial Epi-data, Front-line evidence and experiences, Ontario Gay Men’s Situational Report, Pride, Lamda (MTrack), Male Call Canada, M’Bwana,

Trans Men’s Needs Assessment and other research on HIV risk including CBR and the views of intended participants and a community capacity assessment.

Priority Setting: Based on an environmental scan of what other work is being done provincially and nationally on HIV prevention for gay men (Assumptions 3, ACT’s Tina, CAMH Rainbow services, local and regional CBR, Poz prevention, anti-homophobia campaigns and other resources), evaluations of other work with decisions made annually.

21

Campaign roll-out process as KTE

Information developed that articulates the issues, rooted in the knowledge produced for the campaign (integrates research with anecdote/professional experience)

Planning day with front-line workers who deliver the campaign to discuss the knowledge in greater depth

Campaign presentations at KTE events; allows for further articulation and discussion of knowledge

Other research presented and discussed in context of HIV stigma and health

22

GMSH Process Evaluation Heard from 52 of 64 participants

Sought feedback on strategy communication, inclusion and decision-making

sought feedback on value of participation for front-line work

What we learned

>80% feel participation is very or quite worthwhile

>80% feel input reflected very much or somewhat in outcomes and decisions; >90% feel outcomes and decisions reflect meeting discussions

23

GMSH Process Evaluation

Top three benefits to participating

Strengthen connection between research and communities

Connecting policy to what is going on in communities

Exchanging ideas and learning from experiences of others/networking

24

So, how do I get my research into policy, into programs? Build a relationship with the communities for which you do your

research work

Be a critical community-based researcherMulti-stakeholder partnerships in research (ie. from the

beginning, with meaningful sharing of authority over the work)View KTE as a necessary and vital component of the research

processAdvocate within research institutions for models of research

training, funding, and research oversight that recognize the importance of an integrated approach to research

Challenge the myth that quality, publishable research cannot be done in collaboration with communities, with shared power

Participate in KTE events in the community

25

So, how do I get my research into policy, into programs?

Understand/value the vital contributions of people living with HIV, people living with the real risk of HIV infection, and people working with these communities every day to improve their health and well-being in research and in policy

Publish, present your work at conferences and in communities

Build a relationship with civil servants charged with facilitating policy development work

Invite them to be on your multi-stakeholder research team or advisory committee

Participate in committee work and other policy development processes

Send them your work and invite them to dialogue with you about your research

26

James Murray, Senior Program Consultant

AIDS Bureau

Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

416-327-8816

james.murray@ontario.ca

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/hivaids/aids_mn.html