An interventional study of Relationship-Centered HIV Prevention Intervention Component (Proof-of-Concept) in HIV Prevention, HIV Testing and Sexual and Reproductive Health, sponsored by State University of New York at Buffalo. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-16.
Sponsored by State University of New York at Buffalo · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
The goal of this mixed-methods pilot study is to learn whether migration experiences, social bonds, and transnational ties shape HIV prevention decision-making, including HIV testing, HIV self-testing (HIVST), and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake, among first-generation African immigrants aged 18 to 50 residing in New York and Massachusetts. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Participants will:
African immigrants in the United States account for a disproportionate share of new HIV diagnoses relative to their population size, yet this community remains underrepresented in HIV prevention research. Existing prevention strategies rarely address the relational and structural contexts that shape prevention engagement in this population. Relationships, including intimate partnerships, family systems, and co-ethnic social networks, function as key mechanisms through which HIV risk perception, disclosure, and prevention decisions are negotiated. Migration reorganizes these relational structures by altering trust dynamics, communication norms, household decision-making authority, and transnational obligations in ways that are not well understood. The proposed study addresses this gap by generating foundational, mechanism-focused evidence on how migration-shaped relational contexts influence engagement with HIV testing, HIV self-testing, and PrEP among African immigrants in the United States.
The study is guided by a relational-socioecological framework that positions relationships as central mechanisms linking individual, interpersonal, and structural determinants of HIV prevention behavior. Within this framework, migration is not treated as a direct risk factor but as a structural force that reshapes the relational contexts through which prevention decisions occur. Processes such as separation, reunification, and transnational living alter intimacy, trust, and communication, while cross-border financial obligations and dense co-ethnic networks reinforce norms of discretion and respectability that may suppress prevention engagement. This framework builds on prior qualitative and community-engaged research by the principal investigator, including PCORI-supported African immigrant-led agenda-setting work that identified relationships, trust, and communication as central yet under-addressed drivers of HIV prevention in this community.
The study uses a three-phase sequential design in which each phase builds directly on the findings of the prior one. AIM 1, where relationship typologies and relational mechanisms must first be empirically identified before intervention components can be meaningfully co-developed, and community deliberation must occur in AIM 2. The final step in AIM 3 will be a proof-of-concept assessment that can be conducted with a typology-matched sample.
This sequencing ensures that the intervention component tested in Aim 3 is grounded in both empirical evidence and community priorities rather than researcher-imposed assumptions.
Palava Hut Conversations (PHC) is an African-centered deliberative method adapted from traditional West African communal dialogue practices. It structures collective reasoning through facilitated discussion, negotiated agreement, and consensus-building. PHC was selected for Aim 2 because it centers community knowledge and cultural authority in the co-development process, moves beyond nominal input to genuine co-creation, and generates actionable, community-validated outputs through structured prioritization. This approach ensures that intervention components reflect the lived experiences, cultural values, and practical constraints of the target population.
Aim 1 qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis to identify relationship typologies and relational mechanisms. Survey data will be analyzed descriptively to contextualize typology distribution and prevention awareness across the sample.
Aim 2 deliberation outputs, including facilitator notes, decision logs, and prioritization matrices, will be synthesized using rapid qualitative methods to produce a ranked list of intervention components.
Aim 3 pre- and post-exposure survey data will be summarized using descriptive statistics to assess the direction and consistency of change across prevention intention outcomes. Cognitive interview data will undergo rapid thematic analysis focused on implementation-relevant constructs including acceptability, feasibility, perceived fit, usability, and evidence of mechanism activation.
State University of New York at Buffalo is the lead sponsor of 294 studies on the registry; 63 are open to participants now.
Of its 19 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 15 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Inclusion Criteria: Individuals must meet ALL of the following criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants matching the relationship typology prioritized through community deliberation in Aim 2 are assigned to receive a single co-developed behavioral intervention component. The intervention is delivered via Zoom in a standardized facilitation structure and focuses on relationship-based HIV prevention communication and decision-making within migration-shaped relationship contexts. Participants complete a baseline survey (T0) before the intervention and a post-intervention survey (T1) immediately after. A subset of participants completes an optional cognitive interview to assess feasibility, acceptability, perceived fit, and evidence of mechanism activation.
Behavioral: Relationship-Centered HIV Prevention Intervention Component (Proof-of-Concept)
A structured, culturally grounded, relationship-tailored behavioral intervention component co-developed and prioritized through Palava Hut Conversations in Aim 2. The intervention is delivered via Zoom in a standardized facilitation structure and may include guided reflection prompts, scenario-based discussions, structured relational messaging, or communication skill-building exercises designed to address migration-shaped relational dynamics influencing HIV testing, HIVST, and PrEP decision-making. The intervention does not involve drugs, devices, or clinical procedures. Session duration: approximately 60-75 minutes.
Acceptability of Intervention - AIM Score and 75% Acceptability Threshold
Acceptability measured using the validated 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Scores range from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Results will be reported as mean and standard deviation. Higher scores indicate greater acceptability (better outcome). In addition, the intervention will be considered acceptable if: (1) at least 75% of participants rate it as acceptable or very acceptable, and (2) at least 75% rate it as culturally relevant. Unit of Measure: Mean AIM score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session as intervention exposure
Feasibility of Intervention - FIM Score
Feasibility of the intervention will be measured using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), a validated 4-item scale with 5-point Likert responses. Scores range from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Results will be reported as mean and standard deviation. Higher scores indicate greater feasibility (better outcome). Unit of Measure: Mean FIM score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session as intervention exposure
Appropriateness of Intervention - IAM Score
Appropriateness of the intervention will be measured using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), a validated 4-item scale with 5-point Likert responses. Scores range from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Results will be reported as mean and standard deviation. Higher scores indicate greater perceived appropriateness (better outcome). Unit of Measure: Mean IAM score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session as intervention exposure
Change in Mean Score of HIV Testing Intention
Intention to test for HIV will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very unlikely to 5 = Very likely). Change from baseline (T0) to post-intervention (T1) will be reported as mean change score. Higher scores indicate greater intention to test (better outcome). Unit of Measure: Mean change in score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (T0) and immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session
Change in HIV Self-Testing Willingness
Willingness to use HIV self-testing will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very unlikely to 5 = Very likely) with a higher score indicating willingness to conduct HIV Self Testing. Change from T0 to T1 will be reported as mean change score. Unit of Measure: Mean change in score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (T0) and immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session
Change in Communication Readiness
Readiness to discuss HIV prevention within intimate relationships will be measured using 3 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Change from T0 to T1 will be reported as mean change score. Higher scores indicate greater communication readiness (better outcome). Unit of Measure: Mean change in score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (T0) and immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session
Change in PrEP Awareness and Interest
Awareness and interest in PrEP will each be measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not interested to 5 = extremely interested). The change from T0 to T1 will be reported as the mean change score. Higher scores indicate greater willingness and interest (better outcome). Unit of Measure: Mean change in score (1-5 scale)
Time frame: Baseline (T0) and immediately post-intervention (T1), within the same session
Relationship Typologies
Categories of relationship structures among first-generation African immigrants derived from thematic analysis of Aim 1 qualitative interviews. Reported narratively as distinct typologies with descriptive characteristics. Unit of Measure: Number of typologies identified
Time frame: During and after Aim 1 data collection, approximately Months 1-3
HIV Prevention Awareness and Behaviors
Self-reported HIV testing history, HIV self-testing awareness, and PrEP awareness from Aim 1 structured survey. Reported as frequencies and proportions. Unit of Measure: Percentage of participants (%)
Time frame: At Aim 1 survey completion, approximately Months 1-3
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: No — Due to the sensitive nature of data related to HIV status, HIV prevention intentions, immigration experiences, and relationship dynamics, and the use of a small, community-based sample in which re-identification is possible, individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared publicly to protect participant confidentiality and community trust.
Start is estimated for Dec 2026; primary completion for Dec 2027, 12 months later.
Since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026, the dates moved once, on Oct 16, 2026: start Aug 2026 → Dec 2026, primary completion Aug 2027 → Dec 2027 and completion Sep 2027 → Aug 2028.
Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jun 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Coitus
State University of New York at Buffalo →