HIV Vaccine Acceptability among Women at Risk: Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Future HIV Vaccine Uptake
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore perceived barriers and facilitators to the uptake of future U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV vaccines among women at elevated risk for HIV. We conducted four client focus groups (N = 41) and one focus group of women's health care professionals (N =9). Participants were recruited from diverse community agencies and health care clinics in Los Angeles using purposive, venue-based sampling. Data were analyzed using narrative thematic analysis and Ethnograph qualitative software. Barriers to HIV vaccine uptake included fear of vaccine-induced HIV infection, reproductive side effects, injection concerns, gendered roles and power dynamics, HIV stigma, discrimination, affordability, and mistrust. The provision of affordable and accessible HIV vaccines, ideally through routine care, along with culturally tailored, gender-specific HIV vaccine intervention and policy, can ensure the full potential of HIV vaccines to empower women to protect themselves against HIV infection.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it