MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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

2025· other· en· W6940170662 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health In Women's HandsNine Circles Community Health CentreWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchHealth careParticipatory action researchBiobankInformed consentQualitative propertyCommunity-based participatory researchAutonomyConfidentiality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0410.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→