Trial Outcomes & Findings for Testing the Efficacy and Mechanisms of an Adapted Resilience Building Intervention in People Aging With HIV (NCT NCT05314088)

Participants were recruited between 03/2023 and 05/2025 via our university HIV clinic by queries of electronic medical record (EMR) data yielding a list of patients meeting basic criteria that have consented to be contacted for future studies. Patients meeting basic eligibility criteria were called to gauge interest and if interested, completed a brief phone screen to determine final eligibility.

One hundred and six participants were screened as eligible, meaning they met all eligibility criteria and were scheduled for a baseline visit. Of these, 82 completed baseline and were randomized (i.e., they were enrolled). No significant events occurred after enrollment but prior to assignment to a group/randomization.

Testing the Efficacy and Mechanisms of an Adapted Resilience Building Intervention in People Aging With HIV

Daily text messaging at baseline for 10 days and after the intervention for 10 days assessed use of resilience resources following stressors. Participants were texted twice daily to ask if they experienced a stressor (YES/NO) and if YES, then responded on a 5 pt Likert scale on their use of 7 resilience resources: hardiness, optimism, self-efficacy, locus of control, positive reframing, proactive coping, and social support. Scores are average scores for each resource. Higher scores reflect greater levels of the resource (e.g., hardiness), and range from 1-5.

Participants were texted a survey link twice daily for 10 days at baseline and immediately following the intervention which asked if they experienced a stressor (YES/NO) and then they respond on a scale of 1-4 their positive and negative affect (10 items for positive affect and 10 for negative affect). The average difference in negative affect between stressor and non-stressor instances was calculated to reflect negative stress reactivity: Higher scores reflect on average a higher negative emotional state when a stressor is reported vs when a stressor is not reported; scores closer to zero reflect less impact of a stressor on negative affect; lower scores \[i.e., below zero\] reflect on average lower negative emotional state when a stressor is reported vs when a stressor is not reported. The possible range for the negative affect scale is 10-40, therefore the possible average range for the difference between 2 negative affect occasions is -30 to 30.

The Medical Outcome Study (MOS) RAND 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (RAND 36SF) is was used to assess Quality of Life (QOL). For the physical health related QOL composite, scores range from 0-100 with higher scores reflecting better QOL.

Centers for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale assesses depressive symptoms and higher scores reflect greater depressive symptoms. Scores range from 0-60, with higher score reflecting greater depressive symptoms and scores \>=16 reflect clinically relevant symptoms

Visual Analogue Scale of HIV ART adherence, higher scores reflect better self reported adherence to HIV medication. Total scores are on a 0-100% scale with a higher score indicating better adherence.

HIV Treatment Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale, higher scores reflect higher self efficacy for HIV treatment adherence. Total scores range from 0-10 with higher scores reflecting higher confidence in treatment management abilities.

HIV plasma viral load (copies per mL of plasma) extracted from medical records; higher is worse HIV severity; reported in Log10. The clinical quantifiable range for an HIV viral load test typically spans from 1.3 to 7.0 Log10 copies/mL (representing actual raw values from 20 to 10,000,000 copies/mL).