Cognitive factors and willingness to participate in an HIV vaccine trial among HIV-positive injection drug users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are gaps in our knowledge of the role cognitive factors play in determining people's willingness to participate (WTP) in therapeutic HIV vaccine trials. Using a cross-sectional study of HIV-positive injection drug users (IDU), we determined the role of three cognitive factors: HIV treatment optimism, self-efficacy beliefs, and knowledge of vaccine trial concepts in relation to WTP in a hypothetical phase 3 therapeutic HIV vaccine trial. WTP was 54%. Participants tended to be low in HIV treatment optimism (mean = 3.9/10), high in self-efficacy (mean = 79.8/100), and low in knowledge (mean = 4.1/10). Items pertaining to HIV treatment optimism and knowledge of HIV vaccine trial concepts were generally unrelated to WTP. An increase in self-efficacy had a statistically significant positive association with WTP (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.04-2.46, p < 0.05). Furthermore, most of these HIV-positive participants had high levels of self-efficacy, so we are most confident about this relationship at such levels. These findings indicate that interventions focused on increasing self-efficacy could enhance WTP among HIV-positive IDU.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".