1) Social media and online communication has been a major part of Bridge HIV’s engagement with stakeholders, especially in recent years. We developed two websites, one centered on HIV vaccines research and the other on PrEP research, to engage folks online with regards to new and opportunities in the Bay Area when it comes to our studies and HIV prevention in general; interested individuals can fill out inquiry forms on these websites to be entered onto our recruitment lists for our studies, or they can simply learn about HIV prevention research and how to become more involved even if they are not participants, as advocates or informed community members. We also interact with our stakeholders through our two twin Facebook pages that are linked to these aforementioned websites; I am tasked with posting a minimum of twice weekly on each page, usually with news or op-ed articles regarding these subjects. We rarely perform explicit recruitment on Facebook, or Twitter (where we also have a presence) for that matter; these platforms are almost purely used to help educate, spark discussion and critical thought, and promote awareness of our mission and brand among community stakeholders. When we do use these platforms for recruitment, we involve other stakeholders, such as past vaccine study participants who consented and volunteered to having their pictures professionally taken for a vaccine study ad campaign, which we have since used to distribute as both hard-copy and digital media. Often, these individuals featured in the ads will self-promote, posting the ads featuring themselves on their own Facebook pages, which is very exciting for us because of how actively engaged and positive our past participants can be about being involved in our studies.
As for the ways in which social media and other online communication has affected our communication planning, we definitely do monitor our online presence on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms constantly in order to maintain healthy debate that does not become very offensive, as well as to counter misinformation, which often spreads virally online, with correct facts and myth-busting.
2) Since I came onboard with Bridge HIV, the main issue in our PrEP research context that has arisen is the criticism of Truvada by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), who launched an ad campaign in August this year that described government promotion of this prevention strategy as a public health disaster and misconstrued research results to incite doubts in people’s minds about Truvada’s effectiveness. However, far from restricting people’s education and interest regarding PrEP (either Truvada or other experimental PrEP products such as those we are studying at Bridge HIV), the AHF’s controversial ad campaign and associated news about its stance on PrEP has generated a surge in advocacy, self-education, curiosity, and awareness about PrEP in many LGBTQ and other communities, at least in the Bay Area. In fact, I can even attest that some potential participants I have screened for our studies were inspired to learn more about and possibly join our research efforts in part because of all the hype about Truvada that AHF inspired. Many blogs, websites and Facebook pages have also sprung up or increased in popularity/clout in response to AHF’s negative press and the controversy they created. As for Bridge HIV’s specific response to the AHF and their public opinion on PrEP, we responded as we always do in the face of controversy and misinformation: we provided accurate and layperson-accessible information and education via our online channels in order to assure that our followers and stakeholders, as well as anyone else who Googled “PrEP” in response to AHF’s campaign, could come to an informed understanding of whether/how well Truvada actually works.
