HIV vaccine acceptability: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to examine HIV vaccine acceptability and factors impacting acceptability of future HIV vaccines. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles that assessed HIV vaccine acceptability. METHODS: We used a comprehensive search strategy across multiple electronic databases to locate original quantitative or qualitative studies that examined rates or correlates of HIV vaccine acceptability. We conducted meta-analysis on studies reporting correlates or predictors of HIV vaccine acceptability. RESULTS: Twenty studies (n=7576) reported HIV vaccine acceptability ranging from 37.2 to 94.0 on a 100-point scale; weighted mean acceptability =65.6 (SD=21.1). Eleven studies compared HIV vaccine acceptability at high (80-95%) efficacy (mean =73.8; SD=9.2) versus moderate (50%) efficacy (mean =40.4; SD=20.2). Among 13 studies (n=5023) included in meta-analysis, efficacy and non 'risk group' membership had medium effect sizes, and pragmatic obstacles, cost, perceived susceptibility to HIV infection, side effects/safety concerns, fear of vaccines, perceived vaccine benefits, duration of protection, and ethnicity had small effect sizes on HIV vaccine acceptability. CONCLUSION: Public health strategies to promote the benefits of partial efficacy HIV vaccines and accurate HIV risk perceptions, and to dispel vaccine fears, along with structural interventions to subsidize vaccine costs and facilitate access, may increase future HIV vaccine uptake and, in turn, the effectiveness of HIV vaccines in controlling the epidemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".