This article discusses the publicity experience of a medical team closing a medical trial of a microbiocide, cellulose sulphate (CS), which examined its potential to prevent HIV transmission. They discuss the impact of the closure on the participants, the community at the trial site and the public at large, the public health sector, national regulatory bodies, the media, and on other ongoing microbicide trials. According to the authors, "[t]he local lessons that we learnt from the closure may provide guiding principles for researchers and advocates in the HIV prevention field as a whole, who may face similar situations in the future."


In closing the trials due to unexpected results that those in the trial group had a higher rate of infection than those in the placebo group, the communication strategy developed included 1) informing regulatory authorities prior to releasing press statements and requesting a face-to-face meeting with them; and 2) advising partner organisations, community partners, and all research participants that new developments had arisen. Researchers requested community meetings at local levels - favouring explaining details in meetings where questions could be answered. The researchers then contacted a journalist to write a factual article on the change in the project. Despite attempts to be proactive in disseminating correct information, inaccurate and sensational stories, as stated here, appeared in local and national papers, including local language newspapers. Subsequently, the national Department of Health (DOH) in South Africa investigated all microbicide trials for ethical conduct, causing further misunderstanding among the public.


The authors suggest that the minister's announcement of an ethical investigation triggered alarm, misunderstanding, rumours, and, ultimately, mistrust of the research community. They recommend that press conferences announcing results should be held in-country, with representatives from the local department of health and ethics committee, as well as the national principal investigator and sponsor, so that journalists can ask questions rather than interpret results themselves. They recommend that all messages about HIV prevention trials emphasise community education. They stated that public information should include the fact that measuring rates of new infection is the only current way to find trial results. "A major challenge," the authors point out, "is informing people that the effectiveness of an intervention can be assessed only by measuring new HIV infections, and that people will become infected regardless of the intervention being tested." Other recommendations include regular communication between sponsors, investigators, and regulatory bodies, who should also prepare in advance community-friendly communication strategies based on all possible outcomes of a trial.

SciDEv.net website on August 10 2007 and PLoS Med website Volume 4(7), e235, on July 31 2007.