Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25624955›Full record

ArticleThe open AIDS journal2014

Recruitment of HIV-Positive Women in Research: Discussing Barriers, Facilitators, and Research Personnel's Knowledge.

Mona R Loutfy, Logan Kennedy V, Saira Mohammed, Wei Wu, Marvelous Muchenje, Khatundi Masinde, Khaled Salam, Lena Soje, Sandra Gregorovich, Wangari Tharao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The open AIDS journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Screening and Enrollment by Sex in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Clinical Trials in the United States.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. HIV and women's health: Where are we now?Women's health (London, England)
    Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

Mona R LoutfyWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Logan Kennedy VWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Saira MohammedWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wei WuWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marvelous MuchenjeWomen's Health in Women's Hands Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Khatundi MasindeWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Khaled SalamAIDS Committee of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lena SojeBlack Coalition for AIDS Prevention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sandra GregorovichFaculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wangari TharaoWomen's Health in Women's Hands Community Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen have historically been under-represented in HIV research, partly due to ineffective recruitment strategies.

objectiveTo improve the existing understanding of recruitment for HIV-positive women based on a province-wide cross-sectional study.

methodsA survey was emailed to all site coordinators who recruited participants in a study involving 490 HIV-positive women living in Ontario, Canada. The survey consisted of questions regarding the important recruitment barriers and successes. Quantitative data were then contextualized within extensive knowledge from research personnel and team members.

resultsCompleted surveys were received from (89%) site coordinators (34/38) and 98% (31/34) were women. The highest ranked recruitment barriers identified were: sensitivity of the research topic (59%), time/availability constraints (59%), language barriers (53%), HIV disclosure/stigma issues (47%), lack of trust of research personnel (41%), fear of research (41%) and inaccessibility to child care and transportation (41%). The respondents felt that the most important personal attributes for recruitment were research personnel who were respectful (97%), skilled (91%), flexible (88%) and empathetic (88%) and had good communication skills (88%). The most successful recruitment strategies identified were: developing a strong rapport (88%) that was facilitated by an empathetic relationship (100%), acknowledging the sensitive nature of the research topic (94%), providing cash financial compensation (88%), and developing recruitment strategies unique to women (88%).

conclusionThere are differences in the approaches needed for the recruitment of HIV-positive women in research. For successful recruitment of HIV-positive women, a strong rapport between the research personnel and study participants is important. This rapport is facilitated by having study personnel who are respectful, trustworthy, empathetic, and flexible. Population-specific recruitment strategies are important to ensure adequate recruitment of minority groups in research with greater gender consideration for women requiring specific attention.

Indexed as

AIDSclinical researchHIVrecruitmentwomen.

Identifiers

PMID25624955
PMCPMC4302460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.