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 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 | 0.083 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".