Willingness to Participate and Enroll in a Phase 3 Preventive HIV-1 Vaccine Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which HIV-negative cohort study participants would be willing to participate (WTP) in future HIV vaccine trials, to explore enrollment into an ongoing phase 3 HIV vaccine trial, and to assess changing WTP in such trials over time. METHODS: The Vanguard Project is a prospective study of gay and bisexual men in the greater Vancouver region, British Columbia, Canada. Sociodemographic characteristics, sexual risk behavior, beliefs around HIV, and reasons for not participating in the AIDSVAX B/B trial were collected from self-administered questionnaires. Contingency table analysis compared subjects who were WTP with subjects who were not WTP. Logistic regression analyses identified possible predictors of WTP. A subset analysis was conducted to assess changes in WTP in 2001 versus 1997. RESULTS: Of 440 respondents, 214 (48.6%) were WTP, and 97 (22.0%) were not WTP. Those WTP were disadvantaged, sexually risky, and had a high-perceived HIV risk (all p <.05). Reasons for not participating in the AIDSVAX B/B trial included fear of health problems and having missed the deadline for enrollment (all p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that having had a regular sex partner (adjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [confidence interval, 0.25-0.92]) was a negative predictor whereas having a high-perceived HIV risk (adjusted odds ratio, 5.35 [confidence interval, 1.57-18.25]) was a positive predictor of WTP. Comparing WTP in 2001 with that in 1997, 24% of 100 participants who had been previously WTP were now not WTP. CONCLUSION: Improving community and participant knowledge about preventive HIV vaccine trials may help ensure informed consent. However, whether informing potential participants will reverse or contribute to the declining trend in WTP observed in this cohort warrants further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".