Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25559236›Full record

ReviewAIDS care2015

Pharmaceutical HIV prevention technologies in the UK: six domains for social science research.

Peter Keogh, Catherine Dodds

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIDS care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Somatechnics · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter Keogha School of Health and Social Care , University of Greenwich , London , UK.
Catherine Dodds
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Greenwich · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of pharmaceutical HIV prevention technologies (PPTs) over the last five years has generated intense interest from a range of stakeholders. There are concerns that these clinical and pharmaceutical interventions are proceeding with insufficient input of the social sciences. Hence key questions around implementation and evaluation remain unexplored whilst biomedical HIV prevention remains insufficiently critiqued or theorised from sociological as well as other social science perspectives. This paper presents the results of an expert symposium held in the UK to explore and build consensus on the role of the social sciences in researching and evaluating PPTs in this context. The symposium brought together UK social scientists from a variety of backgrounds. A position paper was produced and distributed in advance of the symposium and revised in the light this consultation phase. These exchanges and the emerging structure of this paper formed the basis for symposium panel presentations and break-out sessions. Recordings of all sessions were used to further refine the document which was also redrafted in light of ongoing comments from symposium participants. Six domains of enquiry for the social sciences were identified and discussed: self, identity and personal narrative; intimacy, risk and sex; communities, resistance and activism; systems, structures and institutions; economic considerations and analyses; and evaluation and outcomes. These are discussed in depth alongside overarching consensus points for social science research in this area as it moves forward.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchHIV InfectionsHumansPre-Exposure ProphylaxisPreventive MedicineSexual BehaviorUnited KingdomHIV preventionpharmaceutical prevention technologiesresearch and evaluationsocial sciencessymposium

Identifiers

PMID25559236
PMCPMC4732466
OpenAlexW2099097890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.