Resource: Prioritising Income in HIV Research

Prioritising Income in HIV Research
Ainsley Chapman and Nichole Downer. Canadian AIDS Society, Ottawa: 2004

What CAS did:
We completed telephone interviews with researchers in the field of HIV/AIDS to find out why (or why not) researchers are collecting information on income. We contacted researchers who we knew were leaders in the field and they identified other people that we could contact.

What we found:
We interviewed 12 researchers that do research in the field of HIV. Some of their research interests include: risk factors for HIV transmission, HIV as a risk factor for poverty and quality of life/disease progression.

How many researchers collect information about income?

67% collect data about income.
Although 33% did not collect information on income, the majority of them said that income comes up indirectly in information relating to health, poverty and how life situations shaped experiences.

Of those who responded yes:

87.5% collected sources of income of a household
37.5% collected annual income of a household
37.5% collected individual income and not household income
37.5% collect information about how people use their income
12.5% collect employment status (not employment history)
12.5% use census data to collect income about a population for analysis.

What kinds of Barriers do they face when collecting and analysing Income Data?

50% responded that there is a lack of trust in providing researchers with information around income, especially when dealing with illegal sources of income.
25% responded that when asking questions of a personal nature, such as income, it is difficult creating questions that people feel comfortable answering and to get the answers that the researchers need.
17% felt that there is a lack of priority and support for income research
17% responded that collecting income data is complex. It is time consuming, and information is compounded making it difficult to draw direct results.
17% felt there were no real barriers to income data collection

How do they Analyse and Discuss income in relation to HIV?

50% include income as a factor influencing health
42% include how people are managing and their quality of life
33% use other indicators as a measurement of income such as homelessness, food bank use, education and gender
for 17% income did not really come up in analysis and discussion in their research

How the Research Information is Being Shared

75% shared information in peer reviewed journals
67% shared at community based conferences and public meetings
50% have reports available on the internet
42% presented results at a CAHR conference
33% use community based newsletters
17% presented the results at medical conferences
17% used the information for internal use at their organization
17% presented the information at academic conferences
8% promoted the research in poster sessions

An interesting comment to come out of this research is that the researchers felt that finding funding for research is easier than finding places that will provide funds to distribute the research results.

What would Prioritize Income Related Research?

It was important for 33% that the information be used by policy makers.
33% felt that if there were standard definitions, standard measures and codes of best practice this would prioritize research.
For 25% income is minor in comparison to other project goals and therefore are not convinced that income can be a priority in research
17% felt that not thinking of income in solely dollar figures would be beneficial
17% indicated that more money is needed
8% responded that the community decides what is important research
8% responded that changing the negativity around research in communities is important.

What Does This Mean?
One of the main objectives of this research was to generate interest among community based organizations and researchers to do more research on the relationship between income, HIV and the progression of HIV. Many of the researchers told us that making income an issue that is important to public policy makers would prioritize income in their research. The researchers felt that doing income related research was time consuming and therefore they needed to know that it would be used to bring about real, concrete changes. One researcher indicated that she had an interest in income research, but it was only through the use of data collected by a community based organization that such time consuming research was feasible and worthwhile.

Many researchers also pointed to the lack of standardized measures of comparison as a roadblock. Many of the researchers felt that if there were standardized definitions, standard measures and codes of best practice around income research this would prioritize income research. These standardized measures and definitions would allow for valid comparisons to be made that could be used to advocate for change.

This means that there needs to be a commitment to bring the issue of income security to the policy forefront by lobbying for policy makers to recognize income as an important issue. It is clear that researchers are unable to avoid the use of income in their research as a method of drawing demographic conclusions, but income has repercussions beyond this that need to be explored. Ensuring that the income research reaches the community after it is completed is also vital. People need to step forward and make the issue of income a priority in public policy.

What Action will CAS Take on This?

Continue to advocate for issues around income security to make it a public policy priority on the government agenda
To continue to confer with CAS membership to identify what new actions members would like us to take.
To act as a resource for information around income security for CBOs, researchers, and PLWHIV/AIDS