Methods
We conducted a series of consultations with people living with HIV, clinicians, academics, representatives from community-based organizations and policy and funding stakeholders who participated in the first International Forum on HIV and Rehabilitation Research. The goal of the Forum was to translate research evidence and to establish priorities in HIV and rehabilitation research. We reviewed the need for ethics approval with the University of Toronto, HIV/AIDS Research Ethics Board who confirmed that given the nature of our consultation was the form of a meeting proceeding, this work did not require ethics approval.
Participants and Procedure
We invited key stakeholders and broadly advertised the Forum in four countries (Canada, UK, Ireland, USA) to approximately 700 individuals with e-blasts, emails, websites, electronic newsletters, and posters through five collaborating organizations and one academic centre. This process was critical in order to mobilize diverse participants internationally in order to advance a community of learning and practice.
The two day Forum was held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in June 2013 in collaboration with the Canada-United Kingdom HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative (CUHRRC) and Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation (CWGHR). The event summarized the state of evidence in the field in the form of two plenary sessions and six Research Evidence Panel Sessions, each focused on one of the original research priorities. Each panel included two to five speakers who presented on research and program evaluation carried out in Canada, UK, Ireland, or the United States. A combination of presentations and small and large group discussions provided opportunities to brainstorm new and emerging priorities. Participants discussed the implications of evidence presented for clinical practice, education, policy and research, as well as the cross-applicability of research and practice internationally. The results of these discussions were reported synchronously by graduate student rapporteurs online.
Data Collection
Comments and recommendations related to research priority areas were documented through the following five methods: Prior to the Forum, 1) speakers were asked to submit responses to the following questions: 'What are 2 new and emerging issues in the field of HIV, disability and rehabilitation?' and 'What are 2–3 key research priorities in the area of HIV, disability and rehabilitation essential for moving the field forward?' During the Forum, 2) participants were asked to submit written responses to two questions similar to those above; 3) six graduate student rapporteurs documented the discussion throughout the Forum presentations, and large and small group sessions. 4) Participants were encouraged to document their ideas related to emerging research priorities as they pertained to each research evidence panel session and post them on a communal discussion board. At the end of the Forum, 5) participants were asked to complete an evaluation form that included the following item related to the research priorities: 'In your opinion, what are 1 or 2 new and emerging issues that were not covered in the Forum?' Also, we circulated a link to an online evaluation form one week after the Forum. Collectively, the comments, ideas and recommendations derived from these sources provided the foundation for identifying the new research priorities.
Analysis
We collated and analyzed the data using content analytical techniques. Two reviewers read through and independently coded the material using a line by line process. We developed a list of codes that were clustered into a Framework of current and emerging research priorities in HIV, disability and rehabilitation. Because the original six priorities provided the primary content of the Forum, emerging themes were informed by the original priorities. However, we removed any labels from data sources prior to coding that may have associated feedback with a specific panel session in order to remain open to the possibility for new priorities to emerge. The two reviewers (KKO and JC) met three times to discuss the content analysis and a team of six authors reviewed a preliminary version of the Framework for refinement.