Time for revolution? Enhancing meaningful involvement of people living with HIV and affected communities in HIV cure-focused science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Involving affected communities and people living with HIV (PLHIV) in HIV cure-focused clinical trials has ethical and practical benefits. However, there can be barriers to meaningful involvement of ‘lay people’ in scientific research meaning community consultation is often limited or tokenistic. This paper reports on an Australian project, the INSPIRE project (Improve, Nurture and Strengthen education, collaboration, and communication between PLHIV and Researchers), which aimed to explore barriers and enablers to enactment of the principles of meaningful involvement of PLHIV (MIPA) and affected communities in HIV cure-focused research. The project involved a workshop attended by 40 stakeholders involved in HIV care, research or advocacy including PLHIV, community organizations, basic scientists, and clinicians. The workshop involved a facilitated discussion about community involvement in a hypothetical HIV cure-focused clinical trial. Data were collected through notetaking and video recordings. Qualitative, thematic analysis was undertaken to organize the data and identify core themes related to MIPA. Workshop discussions revealed community stakeholders often feel their involvement in HIV clinical research is undervalued, evidenced by limited financial remuneration and minimal capacity to influence the research design or processes. Building long-term, formal and informal relationships between community organizations, PLHIV, researchers and research teams or laboratories was identified as a strategy to support MIPA at all stages of a clinical trial, from design to dissemination of findings. Enacting MIPA principles in HIV cure-focused research requires a better understanding of the potential to improve research outcomes and ensure quality in the research process.
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 | 0.145 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".