Exploration into the opinions of patients with HIV, healthcare professionals and the lay public of the use of microneedles in clinical practice: highlighting the translational potential for their role in HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor adherence to oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains an important challenge in the treatment of HIV. Microneedles (MN) potentially could offer a non-invasive long-acting (LA) delivery approach, avoiding the need for daily dosing of ART. However, this claim has yet to be explored amongst its potential end-users. The aim of this mixed methods study was to investigate the perspectives from various end-users surrounding the translation of MN technology to general clinical practice, with a particular focus on delivery of ART. Quantitative postal questionnaires were distributed amongst healthcare professionals (HCPs) and the lay public (LP). A total of 208 responses were obtained (HCP, 69; LP, 139), with a completion rate of 34.7%. The consensus on MN technology was positive from both demographics (HCP, 97.1%; LP, 98.6%), with further strong support of postulated MN use within HIV (HCP, 97.1%; LP, 98.6%). Qualitative focus groups were employed to investigate in-depth, the perspectives of 12 patients with HIV. Again, consensus on MN technology was positive, highlighting benefits pertinent to HIV, including discreet self-application and potential sustained release thus avoiding daily oral ART and associated side effects. Patient concerns focused on the need for varied MN dosing schedules and a reluctance to change from established ART. The findings of this study provide an initial indication of MN acceptability, particularly for use within HIV, from various end-user demographics. Furthermore, concerns raised advocate the importance of continued translational research in this area and should act as motivators for those in MN development to ensure a patient-centred MN product is delivered. Graphical Abstract.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".