Research Design and methodology:
Research is defined by Oliver (2010) as a process of collecting information systematically. In order to examine the variables that relate to HIV Self-Testing and the improvement of these variables the research proposal is to incorporate the “I”. This is taken from the HUIT which is an acronym that stands for “Hypothesis, Unit of analysis, Intervention and Timing of measure” (Bailey and Handu 2013) p. 32. In this perspective, although “Intervention” for HIV Self-Testing is embedded as a clinical context to improve the history of HIV monitoring, however, the intervention is proposing a community setting approach in order to answer the question mentioned in the background information.
Randomised Control Study:
According to Stewart (2002) p.119, “randomised control study is applied in an approach to examine the effectiveness of an intervention”. Manson and Dale (2011) p.9 went on to define it as a tool for self-management of health. However, the definition is simplified by Kendall (2013) as it is referred to as a trial that random assign either one or two groups to receive an intervention to test and to give a comparison.
Bias and chance:
In randomised trials, bias is a likely problem just like all epidemiological studies. In order to minimise bias, the intervention plan will be concealed until the time of the study to ensure bias is not introduced especially at this stage of subject assigning. This will help to reduce selection bias. According to Spieth, et al (2016), assigning of two or more groups is evidenced to increase efficiency thereby reducing bias. Therefore, the two groups will be assigned to this study randomly. By doing so, there is every chance to distribute the subjects evenly.
In epidemiology, a population is “every subject” in a group of study (Stewart 2012). This meets the inclusion criteria for the proposed study. Population group also include organisations that we will be working with.
In this study, the population criteria are planned to apply basic demographic factors because this is important at the analysis stage. This is because the analysis stage is the stage that will show if the confounding variables were equally distributed (Kendall 2012). The following are the confounding variables:
• The IDU community which has been represented in the background information.
• Males and females
• A population that can give informed consent as this is ethical.
• Health workers from Liverpool Scheme Regional Drug Training and information centre in Merseyside
• Managers at Liverpool Scheme.
• A population that cannot give consent and this is unethical.
In a research proposal, a sampling strategy must be representative of the study population (Kendall 2013). The planned approach is to collaborate with Liverpool Pathways in order to recruit the population group that is projected to apply the results. Furthermore, the study population is accessible and this will help to generalise the findings from the study sample effectively. With the recruitment, the focus will be given to the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified above.
Pandis et al (2011) stress that a proper sample size in a study gives precision and power for the study findings as it is scientifically and justified ethically and holds credibility unlike studies with insufficient size. Therefore, the sample size of 30 will be recruited randomly to ensure validity and efficiency. Pieth et, al (2016) considered effective randomisation as efficient in constituting intervention evidence.
The tool for data collection will be a questionnaire.
The findings of the project evaluation will be published on DrugWise website and in the project newsletter. The newsletter will be available in Liverpool council libraries around the borough and Liverpool John Moore University.
The monitoring plan strategy will commence at the end of the first month of operation to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the initiative. According to Courtney (2002), many strategies plan fails because of no framework put in place at the beginning to monitor progress against the plan. The project evaluator will be responsible will the process. The evaluation strategy will be conducted using the formative as well as the quantitative procedures for effective results. The system of evaluation is planned based on a protocol guide of Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Timely records (SMART).
The findings of the project evaluation will be published at Heart Charity website and in the project newsletter. The newsletter will be available in Sandwell libraries, GPS around the borough and council offices.