Posttrial HIV Vaccine Adoption: Concerns, Motivators, and Intentions Among Persons at Risk For HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal uptake of existing vaccines, potential obstacles specific to HIV/AIDS stigma and mistrust, and marked health disparities suggest that it is vital to investigate consumer concerns, motivations, and adoption intentions regarding posttrial HIV vaccines before a vaccine is publicly available. METHOD: Nine focus groups were conducted with participants (n = 99; median age, 33 years; 48% female; 22% African American, 44% Latino, and 28% white) recruited from 7 high-risk venues in Los Angeles using purposive venue-based sampling. A semistructured interview guide elicited concerns, motivators, and adoption intentions regarding hypothetical U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV vaccines. Data were analyzed using narrative thematic analysis and Ethnograph qualitative software. RESULTS: Concerns included vaccine efficacy, vaccine-induced infection, vaccine-induced HIV seropositivity, side effects, cost/access, trustworthiness, and relationship issues. Motivators included protection against HIV infection and the ability to safely engage in unprotected sex. Participants expressed reluctance to adopt partial efficacy vaccines and likelihood of increased sexual risk behaviors in response to vaccine availability. CONCLUSION: Tailored interventions to facilitate uptake of future U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV vaccines and to prevent risk behavior increases may be vital to the effectiveness of vaccines in controlling the AIDS pandemic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".