ArticleGlobal bioethics = Problemi di bioetica2020
HIV prevention clinical trials' community engagement guidelines: inequality, and ethical conflicts.
Article in Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Youth Advisory Boards to subject matter research consultants: transforming youth participation in research advising and practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Community engagement group model in basic and biomedical research: lessons learned from the BEAT-HIV Delaney Collaboratory towards an HIV-1 cure.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- What's trust got to do with research: why not accountability?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Safety and efficacy of G2-S16 dendrimer as microbicide in healthy human vaginal tissue explants.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Article
- Process adaptations to community-engaged research for preventing victimization against trans women: Failure as a blueprint toward nonexploitative implementation science.The American psychologistArticle
- The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2004 and 2005, the first clinical trials were launched to investigate the use of tenofovir for HIV prevention in Cambodia,Cameroon, Nigeria and Thailand. Controversies erupted over the ethical integrity of the research protocol. We reflect on the events that ledto the controversies and identified that scientific and ethical concerns raised by members of local communities at each of these sites wereerased by trialists, causing crisis that led to premature shut down the early PrEP trials. In the aftermath of these trials, the World HealthOrganisation, UNAIDS, and AVAC developed ethics guidelines intended to recognize the concerns as authentic, and developed guidelines toimprove researchers' engagement of communities in biomedical HIV prevention trial design and implementation. Our findings suggest thatthe ethics guidelines are limited in its ability to address power inequalities that leads to voice erasures and non-recognition of localcompetencies. Rather the ethical documents enabled trialists to gain a new sense of authority through the interpretations of ethical researchconduct enabling trialists regain power that can further entrench inequality and voice erasures. To address concerns with what seems anintractable problem, we suggested models of engagement for off-shored research may be the option.
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.