Motivators of enrolment in HIV vaccine trials: a review of HIV vaccine preparedness studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV vaccine preparedness studies (VPS) are important precursors to HIV vaccine trials. As well, they contribute to an understanding of motivators and barriers for participation in hypothetical HIV vaccine trials. Motivators can take the form of altruism and a desire for social benefits. Perceived personal benefits, including psychological, personal, and financial well-being, may also motivate participation. The authors performed a systematic review of HIV VPS using the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The authors independently searched the literature for individual HIV VPS that examined motivators of participation in a hypothetical HIV vaccine trial, using the same search strategy. As the denominators employed in the literature varied across studies, the denominators were standardized to the number of respondents per survey item, regardless of their willingness to participate (WTP) in an HIV vaccine trial. The authors retrieved eight studies on social benefits (i.e., altruism) and 11 studies on personal benefits conducted in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, as well as 19 studies on social benefits and 20 studies on personal benefits in the non-OECD countries. Various different forms of altruism were found to be the major motivators for participation in an HIV vaccine trial in both the OECD and the non-OECD countries. In a large number of studies, protection from HIV was cited as a personal motivator for participation in a hypothetical HIV vaccine trial in the OECD and the non-OECD countries. Knowledge of motivators can inform and target recruitment for HIV vaccine trials, although it must be remembered that hypothetical motivators may not always translate into motivators in an actual vaccine trial.
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 | 0.025 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".