“ … it’s almost therapeutic, right? Because it’s almost like that session that I never had”: gay men’s accounts of being a participant in HIV research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited research has explored how gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men describe the impact of their involvement in HIV and sexual health research. We enrolled 166 gay and bisexual men who tested HIV-negative at a community sexual health clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, into a year-long mixed methods study. Thirty-three of these participants who reported recent condomless anal intercourse were purposively recruited into an embedded qualitative study. Analysis revealed rich accounts of the self-described, interrelated impacts of study participation: (1) pride in contribution and community involvement (e.g., as a rationale for enrolment and an outcome of participation); (2) how one thinks about sexual behaviours and partnerships (e.g., encouraging reflection on the types and amount of sex they have had; in some cases the methods of quantitative data collection were said to have produced feelings of guilt or shame); and (3) experiencing research as a form of counselling (e.g., qualitative interviews were experienced as having a major therapeutic component to them). Our analysis underscores the importance of researchers being reflexive regarding how study participation in HIV research may impact participants, including unintended emotional and behavioural impacts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".