When an HIV cure becomes available, it will have consequences for people living with HIV (PLHIV) and key populations who are vulnerable to HIV. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceived impact of two HIV cure scenarios (post-treatment control when HIV is suppressed without the need for ongoing antiretroviral treatment (ART) and complete HIV elimination) on the quality of life of PLHIV and key populations living without HIV in the Netherlands. Participants were purposefully sampled from the Amsterdam Cohort Studies, the AGEhIV Cohort Study, the outpatient clinic of the University Medical Centre Utrecht and the Dutch HIV Association to increase variability. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted between October 2020 and March 2021 and thematically analysed. Of the 42 interviewed participants, 29 were PLHIV and 13 represented key populations (i.e., men who have sex with men and people injecting drugs). Both PLHIV and participants from vulnerable key populations hoped that a cure would result in normalization of their lives by removing the need to disclose HIV, reducing stigma and guilt, increasing independence of ART, and liberating sexual behaviour. Both groups believed only HIV elimination could accomplish this desired impact. While the post-treatment control scenario seems a more plausible outcome of current HIV cure research, our findings highlight that participants may not perceive it as a true cure. Involvement of PLHIV and vulnerable key populations in devising acceptable and feasible experimental approaches to HIV cure is essential to ensure their future successful implementation.

This qualitative study aimed to explore the experienced influence of HIV on the quality of life (QoL) of people with HIV (PHIV) and key populations without but are vulnerable to HIV in the Netherlands. We conducted and thematically analyzed interviews with 29 PHIV and 13 participants from key populations without HIV (i.e., men who have sex with men). PHIV and key populations shared positive meaningful experiences regarding HIV, i.e., feeling grateful for ART, life, and the availability of PrEP, being loved and supported in the light of HIV, and providing support to the community. Negative predominant experiences regarding HIV were described by both PHIV and key populations as the negative effects of ART, challenges with regards to disclosing HIV, social stigmatization, and self-stigma. It remains important to support HIV community organizations in their efforts to reduce social stigmatization and to continue improving biomedical interventions for HIV.

Despite the growing interest in public and patient involvement in research, best practices in the leprosy context have yet to be explored. This mixed-method study aimed to explore the interpretation, barriers and opportunities of meaningful engagement of persons affected by leprosy in research through: (i) an exploratory phase consisting of key informant interviews with experts in public and patient involvement (n = 2) and experts-by-experience (i.e., persons affected by leprosy; n = 4), and (ii) an in-depth phase among leprosy researchers consisting of an online survey (n = 21) and key informant interviews (n = 7). Qualitative data were thematically analyzed. Basic descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey data. Key informant interviewees unanimously agreed to the importance of engagement in research. Survey results indicated that the level of engagement differed across research stages. Identified barriers included a lack of skills for or awareness of engagement among both experts-by-experience and researchers, stigma and limited time and resources. Opportunities included capacity strengthening, creating a shared understanding, building rapport, and establishing a safe environment. In conclusion, this exploratory study emphasized the importance of engagement of experts-by-experience in leprosy research and identified ways forward that include, but are not limited to, the acknowledgement of its value and creating a shared understanding.