HIV Technology Transfer in Los Angeles: Preliminary Data on Evidence-Based Interventions Delivery
Rosemary Veniegas, UC-Los Angeles
Social and Behavioral
2005
Background: Community-based organizations (CBOs) have been strongly encouraged to implement evidence-based HIV prevention interventions for their clients. Many CBOs have begun conducting these interventions with limited guidance on how to adapt and tailor them for new target populations. CBOs' perspectives on the factors predicting successful or challenged implementation are of great interest to community planners, public health officials, intervention developers and funders alike. The Technology Transfer Model (TTM, Kraft et al., 2000) describes a three-phase (Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Maintenance and Evolution) process leading to successful replication of evidence-based interventions. This study will identify specific strategies that LosAngeles CBOs have employed to ensure success and overcome barriers during each of the TTM phases. Specific technology transfer training and technical assistance needs will also be identified at each TTM phase.
Methods: Eligible participants will complete close-ended background surveys regarding their organization's characteristics and will be interviewed for up to 90 minutes. Staff will be interviewed twice over the course of the study. The first wave of interviews will ask about pre-implementation and implementation phases of technology transfer. The second wave of interviews, scheduled when many of the programs will finish at least one cycle of implementation, willask about maintenanceand evolution(e. g., ensuring the presence of staff that can continue to implement the intervention). Up to 36 CBO staff with experience carrying out evidence-based interventions will be recruited for this study.
Results or Expected Results: CBO staff recruitment has begun. A total of 23 CBOs in Los Angeles were identified that were implementing 36 programs based on 12 distinct evidence-based interventions. A total of 37 CBO staff were identified as potential participants and invited to participate in the study. Seventy-one percent of these staff were working on interventions targeting men who have sex with men (MSM), 32% were targeting individuals who were HIV-positive, 24% were targeting men who have sex with men and women (MSMW), 22% were targeting women at sexual risk (WSR), 8% were targeting MSM who inject drugs, and 8% were targeting transgenders at sexual riskor whowereinjectiondrugusers. Heterosexualmaleinjection drug users and female injection drug users were each targeted by 5% of CBO staff. Information on which behavioral risk groups were being targeted was missing for three (8%) of the 37 staff. Los Angeles County has eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs) corresponding with different regions. Thirty-two percent of staff were conducting their interventions in SPA 2 (San Fernando), 27% percent of staff were conducting their interventions in SPA 8 (South Bay), 24% in SPA 3 (San Gabriel), 24% in SPA 6 (South), 16% in SPA 7 (East), 14% in SPA 4 (Metro), 8% in SPA 5 (West), and 5% in SPA 1 (Antelope Valley).Information regarding which SPAs were being targeted was missing for eight (22%) of the 37 staff.
Conclusion: The majority of staff were targeting MSM, followed by HIV-positive individuals, MSMW and WSR. More than a quarter of staff were conducting their evidence-based interventions in the San Fernando Valley and South Bay regions. Notably, the concentration of evidence-based interventions was higher in areas outside the Metropolitan region, which has the highest non-AIDS HIV percentage in the County. In light of these preliminary data, technology transfer resources may need to be dispersed across the entire span of Los Angeles County rather than focused in one or two areas.
