HIV Vaccine Trial Participation Among Ethnic Minority Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underrepresentation of ethnic minority communities limits the generalizability of HIV vaccine trial results. We explored perceived barriers and motivators regarding HIV vaccine trial participation among low-socioeconomic ethnic minority respondents at risk for HIV. METHODS: Six focus group interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Participants (N = 58, mean age = 36 years, 37% female, and 56% Latino/a and 35% African American) were recruited using venue-based sampling in Los Angeles. Data were analyzed using narrative thematic analysis and Ethnograph qualitative software. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to HIV vaccine trial participation, in rank order, were (1) vaccine-induced HIV infection, (2) physical side effects, (3) uncertainty about vaccine efficacy, (4) uncertainty about other vaccine characteristics, (5) mistrust, (6) low perceived HIV risk, (7) study demands, (8) stigma, and (9) vaccine-induced HIV seropositivity. Motivators were (1) protection against HIV infection, (2) free insurance and/or medical care, (3) altruism, and (4) monetary incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Population-specific HIV vaccine trial recruitment and implementation strategies should address trial risks from a family perspective, cultural gender norms, mistrust, low perceived HIV risk, the importance of African-American and Latino/a community participation in HIV vaccine trials, and misconceptions about gaining protection against HIV infection. Increasing the cultural relevance of trial recruitment and implementation should facilitate the participation of Latinos/as and African Americans in HIV vaccine trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".