OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to fill this gap by characterizing the attitudes and concerns of Malaysian MSM regarding HIV prevention mobile apps, particularly regarding the ethical aspects surrounding their use.
METHODS: We conducted web-based focus group discussions with 23 MSM between August and September 2021. Using in-depth semistructured interviews, participants were asked about the risks and ethical issues they perceived to be associated with using mobile apps for HIV prevention. Each session was digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were inductively coded using the Dedoose software (SocioCultural Research Consultants) and analyzed to identify and interpret emerging themes.
RESULTS: Although participants were highly willing to use app-based strategies for HIV prevention, they raised several ethical concerns related to their use. Prominent concerns raised by participants included privacy and confidentiality concerns, including fear of third-party access to personal health information (eg, friends or family and government agencies), issues around personal health data storage and management, equity and equitable access, informed consent, and regulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The study's findings highlight the role of ethical concerns related to the use of app-based HIV prevention programs. Given the ever-growing nature of such technological platforms that are intermixed with a complex ethical-legal landscape, mobile health platforms must be safe and secure to minimize unintended harm, safeguard user privacy and confidentiality, and obtain public trust and uptake.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.