MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134026206 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-731

“If It’s Not Working, Why Would They Be Testing It?”: mental models of HIV vaccine trials and preventive misconception among men who have sex with men in India

2013· article· en· W2134026206 on OpenAlexafffund
Venkatesan Chakrapani, Peter A. Newman, Neeti Singhal, Ruban Nelson, Murali Shunmugam

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineFocus groupThematic analysisClinical trialPsychological interventionFamily medicineHIV vaccineMen who have sex with menQualitative researchPsychiatryVaccine trialHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Syphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Informed consent based on comprehension of potential risks and benefits is fundamental to the ethical conduct of clinical research. We explored mental models of candidate HIV vaccines and clinical trials that may impact on the feasibility and ethics of biomedical HIV prevention trials among men who have sex with men (MSM) in India. METHODS: A community-based research project was designed and implemented in partnership with community-based organizations serving MSM in Chennai and Mumbai. We conducted 12 focus groups (n=68) with diverse MSM and 14 key informant interviews with MSM community leaders/service providers using a semi-structured interview guide to explore knowledge and beliefs about HIV vaccines and clinical trials. Focus groups (60-90 minutes) and interviews (45-60 minutes) were conducted in participants' native language (Tamil in Chennai; Marathi or Hindi in Mumbai), audio-taped, transcribed and translated into English. We explored focus group and interview data using thematic analysis and a constant comparative method, with a focus on mental models of HIV vaccines and clinical trials. RESULTS: A mental model of HIV vaccine-induced seropositivity as "having HIV" resulted in fears of vaccine-induced infection and HIV stigma. Some participants feared inactivated vaccines might "drink blood" and "come alive". Pervasive preventive misconception was based on a mental model of prevention trials as interventions, overestimation of likely efficacy of candidate vaccines and likelihood of being assigned to the experimental group, with expectations of protective benefits and decreased condom use. Widespread misunderstanding and lack of acceptance of placebo and random assignment supported perceptions of clinical trials as "cheating". Key informants expressed concerns that volunteers from vulnerable Indian communities were being used as "experimental rats" to benefit high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-informed interventions that engage with shared mental models among potential trial volunteers, along with policies and funding mechanisms that ensure local access to products that demonstrate efficacy in trials, may support the safe and ethical implementation of HIV vaccine trials in India.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.458
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.048 · 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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207