MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002820975 · doi:10.2174/1874613601408010058

Recruitment of HIV-Positive Women in Research: Discussing Barriers, Facilitators, and Research Personnel’s Knowledge

2014· article· en· W2002820975 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mona Loutfy, Logan Kennedy, Saira Mohammed, Wei Wu, Marvelous Muchenje, Khatundi Masinde, Khaled Salam, Lena C. Soje, Sandra Gregorovich, Wangari Tharao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open AIDS Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsAIDS Committee of TorontoBlack Coalition for AIDS PreventionWomen's Health In Women's HandsMcMaster UniversityWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsFinancial compensationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineStigma (botany)Family medicineNursingCompensation (psychology)Medical educationPsychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women have historically been under-represented in HIV research, partly due to ineffective recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVE: To improve the existing understanding of recruitment for HIV-positive women based on a province-wide cross-sectional study. METHODS: A survey was emailed to all site coordinators who recruited participants in a study involving 490 HIV-positive women living in Ontario, Canada. The survey consisted of questions regarding the important recruitment barriers and successes. Quantitative data were then contextualized within extensive knowledge from research personnel and team members. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from (89%) site coordinators (34/38) and 98% (31/34) were women. The highest ranked recruitment barriers identified were: sensitivity of the research topic (59%), time/availability constraints (59%), language barriers (53%), HIV disclosure/stigma issues (47%), lack of trust of research personnel (41%), fear of research (41%) and inaccessibility to child care and transportation (41%). The respondents felt that the most important personal attributes for recruitment were research personnel who were respectful (97%), skilled (91%), flexible (88%) and empathetic (88%) and had good communication skills (88%). The most successful recruitment strategies identified were: developing a strong rapport (88%) that was facilitated by an empathetic relationship (100%), acknowledging the sensitive nature of the research topic (94%), providing cash financial compensation (88%), and developing recruitment strategies unique to women (88%). CONCLUSION: There are differences in the approaches needed for the recruitment of HIV-positive women in research. For successful recruitment of HIV-positive women, a strong rapport between the research personnel and study participants is important. This rapport is facilitated by having study personnel who are respectful, trustworthy, empathetic, and flexible. Population-specific recruitment strategies are important to ensure adequate recruitment of minority groups in research with greater gender consideration for women requiring specific attention.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.726
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.087 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open AIDS JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207