MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406389667 · doi:10.1186/s12910-025-01161-0

Navigating ethics in HIV data and biomaterial management within Black, African, and Caribbean communities in Canada

2025· article· en· W4406389667 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rusty Souleymanov, Bolaji Akinyele-Akanbi, Chinyere Njeze, Patricia Ukoli, Paula Migliardi, Linda Larcombe, Gayle Restall, Laurie Ringaert, Michael L. Payne, John Kim, Wangari Tharao, A H Wilcox

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Ethics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaNine Circles Community Health CentreWomen's Health In Women's HandsManitoba HealthWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of ManitobaResearch ManitobaImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhilosophy of medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental ethicsAnthropologySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicinePhilosophyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study explored the ethical issues associated with community-based HIV testing among African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) populations in Canada, focusing on their perceptions of consent, privacy, and the management of HIV-related data and bio-samples. METHODS: A qualitative community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach was employed to actively engage ACB community members in shaping the research process. The design included in-depth qualitative interviews with 33 ACB community members in Manitoba, Canada. The study was guided by a Community Guiding Circle, which contributed to study design, data analysis, and interpretation. A diverse sample was recruited through community agencies, social media, and flyers, with considerations for variations in age, gender, sexual orientation, and geographical location. The study employed iterative inductive thematic data analysis. FINDINGS: Participants expressed significant concerns about the collection, sharing, and use of HIV data from healthcare encounters, revealing mistrust towards institutions like police, child welfare, and immigration accessing their health information. Their worries centered on the handling of biological samples, data misuse, potential human rights violations, HIV criminalization, deportations, challenging consent, privacy, and bodily autonomy principles. While open to contributing to medical research, they unanimously demanded greater transparency, informed consent, and control over the secondary use of their health data. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores the need for culturally safe approaches in HIV testing and ethical governance in healthcare for ACB communities. It highlights the importance of prioritizing participant empowerment, ensuring transparency, practicing informed consent, and implementing robust data security measures to balance effective HIV information management with the protection of individual rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0410.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.416
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.128 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207