Hiring, training, and supporting Peer Research Associates: Operationalizing community-based research principles within epidemiological studies by, with, and for women living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A community-based research (CBR) approach is critical to redressing the exclusion of women—particularly, traditionally marginalized women including those who use substances—from HIV research participation and benefit. However, few studies have articulated their process of involving and engaging peers, particularly within large-scale cohort studies of women living with HIV where gender, cultural and linguistic diversity, HIV stigma, substance use experience, and power inequities must be navigated. Methods: Through our work on the Canadian HIV Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS), Canada’s largest community-collaborative longitudinal cohort of women living with HIV (n = 1422), we developed a comprehensive, regionally tailored approach for hiring, training, and supporting women living with HIV as Peer Research Associates (PRAs). To reflect the diversity of women with HIV in Canada, we initially hired 37 PRAs from British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, prioritizing women historically under-represented in research, including women who use or have used illicit drugs, and women living with HIV of other social identities including Indigenous, racialized, LGBTQ2S, and sex work communities, noting important points of intersection between these groups. Results: Building on PRAs’ lived experience, research capacity was supported through a comprehensive, multi-phase, and evidence-based experiential training curriculum, with mentorship and support opportunities provided at various stages of the study. Challenges included the following: being responsive to PRAs’ diversity; ensuring PRAs’ health, well-being, safety, and confidentiality; supporting PRAs to navigate shifting roles in their community; and ensuring sufficient time and resources for the translation of materials between English and French. Opportunities included the following: mutual capacity building of PRAs and researchers; community-informed approaches to study the processes and challenges; enhanced recruitment of harder-to-reach populations; and stronger community partnerships facilitating advocacy and action on findings. Conclusions: Community-collaborative studies are key to increasing the relevance and impact potential of research. For women living with HIV to participate in and benefit from HIV research, studies must foster inclusive, flexible, safe, and reciprocal approaches to PRA engagement, employment, and training tailored to regional contexts and women’s lives. Recommendations for best practice are offered.
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 | 0.140 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".