Missing voices: building women living with HIV’s meaningful engagement in HIV clinical and cure research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women living with HIV are consistently under-represented in HIV clinical trials, including cure trials. Little is known about how cisgender women living with HIV in Australia perceive HIV cure research, their level of trust in research institutions/staff, and factors salient to participation in HIV cure trials. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women living with HIV and clinicians working with women living with HIV to investigate motivations and barriers to gender-equitable representation in HIV clinical research. Participant motivations for participation included altruistic desires to benefit younger women, and to optimise resulting interventions. Women living with HIV expressed optimism that a cure would dispel HIV-related stigma and brings about substantial material improvement to their lives. Reluctance to participate related to concerns regarding potential side-effects, antiretroviral treatment interruption, and impacts on fertility. Unfamiliarity with trials, confidentiality concerns and logistical difficulties were also cited. Lastly, onerous eligibility criteria, clinicians' assumptions about women's willingness and ability to meaningfully provide consent to participation were cited as barriers which could be addressed. Bolstering women's participation in HIV cure research requires consideration of factors relating to reproductive health, analytical treatment interruption, and recruitment. Engaging women living with HIV in trial design and promotion may help overcome these issues.
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 | 0.133 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".