ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2016
". . . I've Gone Through This My Own Self, So I Practice What I Preach . . . ".
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2018Pooled it
- Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2022Trial
- Attitudes towards and experiences with economic incentives for engagement in HIV care and treatment: Qualitative insights from a randomized trial in Kenya.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Community engagement and ethical global health research.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2020Article
- Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- "Why Don't You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?": Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has not been enough study of the processes by which site staff help participating community members and potential participants to understand complicated concepts for HIV vaccine trials. This article describes strategies reported in six focus group discussions with Community Advisory Board members, educators, and consent counselors at an active HIV vaccine trial site in South Africa. Thematic analysis identified a considerable range of strategies, and findings suggest that such staff do not only try to promote understanding of critical information but also try to build trust in communicated information, to respect cultural differences, and to promote voluntariness. Findings also suggest occasional tensions between these implicit goals. Actual engagement and consent encounters at HIV vaccine trial sites should be observed, recorded, and analyzed; and the relationship between practices and valued outcomes should be assessed. These efforts may help to make consent-related encounters as "potent" as possible given finite resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.