Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30009625›Full record

ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2019

Indirect Benefits in HIV Cure Clinical Research: A Qualitative Analysis.

Adam Gilbertson, Elizabeth Poole Kelly, Stuart Rennie, Gail Henderson, JoAnn Kuruc, Joseph D Tucker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Adam Gilbertson1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Elizabeth Poole Kelly4 Department of Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stuart Rennie1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Gail Henderson1 Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
JoAnn Kuruc5 Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Joseph D Tucker5 Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
Mucosal barrier function during Salmonella infectionR01AI083663 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI RAFFATELLU, MANUELA · 2010 to 2014
$1.9M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI050410NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI083663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, much of early phase HIV cure research involves unknown and potentially serious risks, with little or no chance of direct health benefits. During informed consent, researchers emphasize this lack of personal medical benefit to minimize misconceptions that undermine genuine consent. We explored participants' and researchers' perspectives on HIV cure clinical research participation and its potential benefits. We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 HIV cure research participants and nine researchers in North Carolina, USA. We analyzed interviews to identify participant experience-related themes. We were particularly interested in indirect benefits, such as psychological support or improved care. We also assessed five consent documents for benefit/risk-related language. Research participants were male, with a median age of 50 (range: 28-62); most were non-Hispanic white (15/17) and men who have sex with men (13/17). All 17 trial participants found research participation meaningful and beneficial. Reported benefits included improved healthcare (16/17), HIV knowledge (13/17), intimate relationships (10/17), and positive behaviors (6/17). In addition, all participants described psychological benefits, including increased positive outlook, improved sense of purpose, emotional support, and enriched self-image. Participants reported risks such as quality of life concerns, uncomfortable procedures (e.g., leukapheresis), latency reversal, and HIV status disclosure. While the consent documents included discussion of these and other risks, they did not mention potential indirect benefits. Individuals involved in HIV clinical research have recognized participant psychological, social, and behavioral benefits. We recommend that researchers and institutional review boards consider these benefits for inclusion during risk/benefit assessments, consent procedures, and other discussions with prospective participants.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultClinical Trials as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaPatientsQuality of LifeResearch PersonnelYoung Adultbenefitsbioethicsclinical research ethicsHIV curequalitative researchrisks

Identifiers

PMID30009625
PMCPMC6343180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.