Resolving Challenges in HIV Cure–Related Research: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Consensus-Building Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: HIV cure-related research is expanding rapidly, bringing both new opportunities and ethical challenges. Historically, clinical trials for novel HIV treatments have underrepresented populations most affected by HIV, such as Black gay men and transgender women. This disparity is compounded by medical mistrust and historical mistreatment of racially and ethnically diverse individuals in the United States. Addressing these issues is crucial as we plan HIV cure-related clinical trials. We aim to build consensus on how to increase representation of groups most affected by HIV in cure-related trials in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe a protocol using a hybrid Delphi consensus-building methodology to build consensus on 3 key research questions: how to better engage populations in HIV cure research who carry the greatest burden of HIV (ie, racial, ethnic, sex, and gender minority groups); how to enhance trust and diminish mistrust in health care and scientific settings that influence willingness to participate; and how to design HIV cure research and analytical treatment interruption protocols that do not limit participation of working adults. METHODS: We used a hybrid Delphi method, involving 4 iterative survey rounds. Initial surveys were open-ended and broad, refining over subsequent rounds into more specific, closed-ended questions based on previous feedback. Between rounds, an independent stakeholder group reviewed interim findings, incorporating a nominal group technique to enhance the process. Panelists represented diverse racial, ethnic, sex, and gender perspectives, including an intentional oversampling of experts on racial and ethnic minority issues. Recruitment was facilitated through partnerships with community-based organizations, such as The Well Project, National Minority AIDS Council, and TruEvolution. RESULTS: As of December 2024, all 4 Delphi survey rounds and 3 nominal group technique discussions have been completed. The process progressed from broad, open-ended questions in round 1 to structured ranking and rating in rounds 3 and 4. Iterative feedback informed survey refinement between rounds. The final data analysis and synthesis of consensus recommendations are underway and will be reported in a forthcoming results paper. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid Delphi methodology effectively refined responses and built consensus on engaging priority populations in HIV cure research. Oversampling of diverse participants and the inclusion of independent stakeholder feedback added robustness and inclusivity to the findings. Future steps include detailed data analysis and data dissemination. Consensus recommendations will be reported in subsequent manuscripts to inform more inclusive, trust-centered, and accessible HIV cure trial design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/67123.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,057 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».