ArticleAIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education2019
I Don't Want the Tray to Tip: Experiences of Peer Evaluators in a Multisite HIV Retention in Care Study.
Article in AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Passion, commitment, and burnout: Experiences of Black gay men working in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in Atlanta, GA.PloS one · 2022Article
- Advice from local/site evaluators: How to manage "up" within a large-scale initiative.New directions for evaluation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous studies demonstrate the efficacy of peer-delivered interventions to improve HIV prevention and care outcomes, yet few explore the role of peers in evaluation and data collection. We conducted qualitative interviews with providers in a multisite HIV Retention in Care initiative to explore peers' evaluation roles, challenges, and strategies for success. We found peers' responsibilities included data collection, client assessments, and data entry. Their rapport with clients was considered an evaluation asset. However, peers struggled with balancing rigorous evaluation and data collection demands with the needs and comfort of clients. Recommendations for peer-based evaluation include ensuring self-care, streamlining workflow, and involving peers in evaluation development and reporting processes. Additional research is needed to explore the extent to which peers participate in evaluation activities and to ensure rigor in peer-based evaluation. Given that peers are well-positioned to collect client-level data, best practices, standards, and trainings for peer-based evaluation should be developed.
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.