ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Fifteen percent to 20% of the Canadian and American populations live outside urban areas, and despite growing regional HIV/AIDS-related health disparities, there is little published research specific to rural or remote (rural/remote) HIV/AIDS prevention programming. OBJECTIVE: To document implementation challenges, lessons learned, and evaluation approaches of promising and proven HIV/AIDS prevention programs and interventions developed and delivered by organizations with rural/remote catchment areas in Canada to provide a foundation for information sharing among agencies. DESIGN: Qualitative study design, using a community-based participatory research approach. We screened Canadian community-based organizations with an HIV/AIDS prevention mandate to determine whether they offered services for rural/remote populations and invited organizational representatives to participate in semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was used to identify categories in the interview data. SETTING: Canada, provinces (all except Prince Edward Island), and territories (all except Nunavut). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four community-based organizations. RESULTS: Screening calls were completed with 74 organizations, of which 39 met study criteria. Twenty-four (62%) interviews were conducted. Populations most frequently served were Indigenous peoples (n = 13 organizations) and people who use drugs (n = 8 organizations) (categories not mutually exclusive). Key lessons learned included the importance of involving potential communities served in program development; prioritizing community allies/partnerships; building relationships; local relevancy and appropriateness; assessing community awareness or readiness; program flexibility/adaptability; and addressing stigma. Evaluation activities were varied and used for funder reporting and organizational learning. CONCLUSIONS: Rural/remote HIV/AIDS programs across Canada expressed similar challenges and lessons learned, suggesting that there is potential for knowledge exchange, and development of a community of practice. Top-down planning and evaluation models may fail to capture program achievements in rural/remote contexts. The long-term engagement practices that render rural/remote programs promising do not always conform to planning and implementation requirements of limited funding.
