MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126464019 · doi:10.34172/bshj.101

Boosting Diverse Communities Participation in Clinical Trials: What People Living with Hepatitis B Must Know

2025· article· en· W7126464019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioSocial Health Journal. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMisinformationOutreachFocus groupClinical trialQualitative researchHepatitis BQualitative propertyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Globally, people from African, Asian and Western Pacific regions are disproportionately affected by hepatitis B virus (HBV) and are underrepresented in HBV clinical trials (trials). This study explored trial knowledge and misconceptions, sources of information, and community recommendations to enhance hepatitis B trial participation. Methods: This mixed-methods study combined an online global survey followed by semi-structured interviews and focus groups (FGs) across 10 diverse communities in the U.S. Qualitative data collection was informed by initial survey insights. Participants were≥18 years old and living with HBV. Results: In total, there were 680 survey respondents and 36 qualitative participants (30 FG participants, 6 interviewees). Survey respondents reported some of the classical challenges to trial participation including limited awareness of trials (73%) and concerns about trial safety (41%). Qualitative participants elaborated on these challenges, discussing difficulties accessing reliable information and misinformation about their eligibility. Despite these challenges, survey (85%) and qualitative participants expressed a high willingness to participate in HBV trials if they were properly informed. Participants identified community-specific strategies to enhance trial awareness, provide accurate information, and address common misperceptions. While healthcare providers and local community organizations were recognized as trusted sources of information, they were among the least frequently reported sources for learning about trials. Conclusion: This study shows that with accurate and accessible information, people living with HBV are more likely to consider participating in clinical trials. However, they are often not exposed to informative trial communications. This limited access fosters misperceptions and fear, hindering hepatitis B trial participation. Community-informed outreach strategies, such as engaging healthcare providers and community-based organizations to deliver culturally tailored and linguistically appropriate education, can enhance community engagement in trials, ensuring diverse and representative participation in HBV trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.302 · 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