MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075578827 · doi:10.1080/13691050600888434

Community preparedness for HIV vaccine trials in the Democratic Republic of Congo

2006· article· en· W2075578827 on OpenAlexaff
John Olin, Jacques Kokolamami, François Bompeka Lepira, Kashamuka Mwandagalirwa, Bavon Mupenda, Michel L. Ndongala, Suzanne Maman, Robert C. Bollinger, Jean B. Nachega, John L. Mokili

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsPreparednessHIV vaccineMedicineVaccine trialClinical trialFocus groupVaccinationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceImmunologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on an assessment of community preparedness for HIV vaccine trials in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Formative research was conducted in the capital city of Kinshasa during the period October 2003 to March 2004 to answer questions pertinent to planning trials of a preventive HIV vaccine and to identify related issues. Twenty‐seven in‐depth interviews and two focus groups were held with potential trial participants and community leaders. Data was collected on the subjects of vaccines, HIV/AIDS and sexual behaviour, and an HIV vaccine. The study also sought to identify factors that motivate a person to volunteer for a vaccine trial or which are disincentives to participation, along with preparedness of the larger community for trials. Personal concerns for health and for the impact of the epidemic on families and country were common motivations for participation. The danger of an experimental vaccine and the stigma of a positive HIV antibody test as the result of vaccination are major concerns and disincentives. The health, educational, and local non‐governmental sectors are identified as having important roles to play in assuring preparedness for trials, although significant challenges exist to achieving community preparedness. Résumé Cet article est le compte‐rendu d'une évaluation de la disposition communautaire vis‐à‐vis des essais de vaccin anti‐HIV en République Démocratique du Congo. Un programme de recherche et de formation fut entrepris dans la ville de Kinshasa, la capitale, d'octobre 2003 à mars 2004 afin de répondre aux questions concernant un projet d'essais d'un vaccin préventif anti‐HIV et d'identifier d'éventuels problèmes annexes. Vingt‐sept entretiens approfondis et deux groupes de discussion furent mis en place réunissant des participants potentiels à ces essais et des dirigeants communautaires. Des données furent recueillies à propos des vaccins, du HIV/sida et le comportement sexuel, et d'un vaccin anti‐HIV. L'investigation cherchait également à identifier les facteurs qui incitent quelqu'un à se porter volontaire pour un essai de vaccin ou qui ont un effet dissuasif à cet égard, ainsi qu'à préciser la disposition de la communauté au sens large à accueillir de tels essais. Les motifs les plus courants en faveur d'une participation sont le souci de l'individu pour sa propre santé et pour l'impact de l'épidémie sur la vie familiale et le pays. Les inquiétudes avec effet dissuasif portent sur le risque éventuel qu'implique un vaccin encore au stade expérimental et sur la honte engendrée par un résultat séropositif en raison des anticorps suite à la vaccination. L'étude fait ressortir le fait que les services de santé et d'éducation ainsi que les organismes locaux non gouvernementaux ont un rôle majeur à jouer pour promouvoir la disposition à participer dans de tels essais, bien que cet effort rencontre des résistances non négligeables au sein de la communauté. Resumen En este ensayo analizamos en qué medida está dispuesta la comunidad de la República Democrática del Congo a participar en ensayos para una vacuna contra el sida. De octubre de 2003 a marzo de 2004 se realizó una investigación formativa en la capital Kinshasa con el objetivo de obtener las respuestas a determinadas preguntas sobre la planificación de ensayos con una vacuna preventiva contra el sida e identificar temas relacionados. Se llevaron a cabo veintisiete entrevistas exhaustivas y dos grupos de discusión con posibles participantes en el ensayo y con líderes de la comunidad. Asimismo se recogieron datos sobre temas relacionados con las vacunas, el VIH y el sida, la conducta sexual y la vacuna contra el sida. La finalidad del estudio también fue identificar qué factores motivan a una persona a presentarse como voluntario para un ensayo de una vacuna o qué factores disuasivos les impiden participar. También se analizó en qué medida está la comunidad más numerosa dispuesta a participar en los ensayos. Algunas de las motivaciones más comunes para participar eran estar preocupados por la salud y el impacto de la epidemia en las familias y el país. Las principales inquietudes e impedimentos eran el peligro de una vacuna experimental y el estigma de dar positivo en la prueba de anticuerpos del VIH como resultado de la vacuna. Identificamos que los sectores sanitarios, educativos y no gubernamentales del municipio desempeñan un importante papel a la hora de asegurar que la población esté preparada para los ensayos, aunque existen aún escollos por superar si queremos conseguir que la comunidad esté preparada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207