Views and Experiences of Mucosal Sampling in HIV Clinical Research among Kenyan Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV transmission predominantly occurs across mucosal surfaces. Efforts to find an effective and efficacious HIV vaccine, requires understanding the various mechanisms of sexual HIV transmission including immune responses to various HIV vaccine candidates along the mucosal pathways. In this paper, we describe the experiences of health volunteers in three Phase 1 HIV vaccines trials and an observation study that comprised of high- risk and low risk healthy participants with regard to the collection of rectal, cervical and seminal mucosal samples. The paper emanates from a study that examined the views and experiences of volunteers in participating in HIV clinical research, at the KAVI-Institute of Clinical Research, Nairobi, Kenya. The study followed a mixed methods phenomenological research approach with a dominant qualitative strand. In the first phase, quantitative data was collected via a survey questionnaire involving 116 volunteers that helped identify 28 volunteers for the qualitative phase. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPPS while qualitative data was transcribed verbatim, thematic themes identified for coding and entered into Atlas ti for analysis. Participants had a mean age of 28.5 ± 5.7 years (range 20–51 years). There were more males (n =85) than females (n= 31). In general, volunteers expressed mixed reactions towards the collection and use of mucosal samples. Both none-consenting and consenting volunteers cited invasiveness of their privacy. Also reported were experiences of physical and psychological discomforts, with men terming the collection of semen via masturbation as unnatural and contravening individuals’ religious and cultural beliefs. The findings reveal a knowledge gap among community members with use of mucosal samples and modes of collection.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".