Service providers, community leaders, and PLWHA from each of the six North Carolina counties.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptInstrument RecruitmentTo achieve data saturation,13 we conducted a total of 11 focus groups with 4?0 participants in each focus group. The Caspase-3 Inhibitor supplement majority of these focus groups were stratified by community leader vs. HIV service providers and by county, but the exceptions included: one focus group with Spanish-speaking community leaders from one three-county community in which over 40 of the PLWHA are Latinos, one combination community leader/provider focus group from one county, and one provider focus group representing three of the counties. HIV service providers were defined as those who provide direct care or services to PLWHA, and community leaders were defined as those who could have an influence in GGTI298 clinical trials engaging their respective communities in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Similarly, we recruited between five to eight PLWHA study participants from each of the six counties for a total of 35 individual PLWHA in-person interviews to achieve data saturation. PLWHA were recruited through local HIV/AIDS case management and clinical care programs in each of the participating counties. Inclusion criteria included selfidentifying as African American or Latino, ability to speak English or Spanish, and residing in one of the six counties. Data Collection The Project EAST design, methods of recruitment, data collection, and data analysis were approved by the University of North Carolina (UNC) Biomedical Institutional Review Board and the UNC General Clinical Research Center on August 29, 2006.Separate semi-structured interview guides were developed for the focus groups and the PLWHA interviews. For both, semi-structured interview guides consisted of parallel a priori conceptual domains that included: community and personal views about HIV/AIDS, views about HIV research or HIV clinical trials, views about how to bring HIV clinical trials into rural communities, and views about different mechanisms (including a mobile van) to conduct HIV clinical trials. For the PLWHA interviews, additional, a priori conceptual domains included: disclosure and preferences relating to participation in HIV clinical trials. Questions and probes were developed for each of the a priori conceptual domains, and those that elicited HIV stigma or related themes are listed in Table 1.HIV service provider and community leader potential focus group participants were recruited by a community outreach specialist from each three-county community. Each community outreach specialist developed a master list of potential participants for the community leader groups by identifying individuals from political, educational, grassroots, economic, media, religious, and social welfare-related community segments. A similar master list was comprised for service providers that included physicians, case managers, health educators, and other clinical practitioners. Each community outreach specialist made phone contact with a purposive sample of leaders to ensure a cross-representation across community segments and provider types for data collection.N C Med J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 February 11.Sengupta et al.PageFocus groups were convened at a centrally-located facility within each three-county region and were conducted by a facilitator and notetaker. Each meeting was digitally recorded, and each lasted an average of 90.Service providers, community leaders, and PLWHA from each of the six North Carolina counties.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptInstrument RecruitmentTo achieve data saturation,13 we conducted a total of 11 focus groups with 4?0 participants in each focus group. The majority of these focus groups were stratified by community leader vs. HIV service providers and by county, but the exceptions included: one focus group with Spanish-speaking community leaders from one three-county community in which over 40 of the PLWHA are Latinos, one combination community leader/provider focus group from one county, and one provider focus group representing three of the counties. HIV service providers were defined as those who provide direct care or services to PLWHA, and community leaders were defined as those who could have an influence in engaging their respective communities in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Similarly, we recruited between five to eight PLWHA study participants from each of the six counties for a total of 35 individual PLWHA in-person interviews to achieve data saturation. PLWHA were recruited through local HIV/AIDS case management and clinical care programs in each of the participating counties. Inclusion criteria included selfidentifying as African American or Latino, ability to speak English or Spanish, and residing in one of the six counties. Data Collection The Project EAST design, methods of recruitment, data collection, and data analysis were approved by the University of North Carolina (UNC) Biomedical Institutional Review Board and the UNC General Clinical Research Center on August 29, 2006.Separate semi-structured interview guides were developed for the focus groups and the PLWHA interviews. For both, semi-structured interview guides consisted of parallel a priori conceptual domains that included: community and personal views about HIV/AIDS, views about HIV research or HIV clinical trials, views about how to bring HIV clinical trials into rural communities, and views about different mechanisms (including a mobile van) to conduct HIV clinical trials. For the PLWHA interviews, additional, a priori conceptual domains included: disclosure and preferences relating to participation in HIV clinical trials. Questions and probes were developed for each of the a priori conceptual domains, and those that elicited HIV stigma or related themes are listed in Table 1.HIV service provider and community leader potential focus group participants were recruited by a community outreach specialist from each three-county community. Each community outreach specialist developed a master list of potential participants for the community leader groups by identifying individuals from political, educational, grassroots, economic, media, religious, and social welfare-related community segments. A similar master list was comprised for service providers that included physicians, case managers, health educators, and other clinical practitioners. Each community outreach specialist made phone contact with a purposive sample of leaders to ensure a cross-representation across community segments and provider types for data collection.N C Med J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 February 11.Sengupta et al.PageFocus groups were convened at a centrally-located facility within each three-county region and were conducted by a facilitator and notetaker. Each meeting was digitally recorded, and each lasted an average of 90.