ArticleVaccine: X2024
Why did I participate in an HIV vaccine study? Experiences of participation in the first phase II HIV vaccine trial in Mozambique: An ancillary study using a mixed-method approach.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Descriptions of risks and benefits of HIV vaccine trials in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs): an integrative review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Protocol for a Study of Home-Based Hair Sample Collection to Monitor Antiretroviral Adherence Among a Multicultural Population of Women with HIV.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study recognized the lack of information regarding recruitment and retention factors associated with implementing HIV vaccine trials from the perspective of Methods: This was an ancillary study with a mixed-method approach that employed a convergent design, combining both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Data collection involved questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions. Participants were assessed before and after learning whether they received the experimental vaccine or placebo. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data, while descriptive analysis and statistical tests such as Fischer's test and McNemar's exact test were applied to quantitative data. The study also utilized the Health Belief Model to understand the decision-making process of participating in an HIV vaccine study. Results: Most of our participants were young females, single, with limited financial resources. Participants joined the trial with the belief that they had a unique opportunity to help the fight against HIV and contribute to the research for the discovery of an HIV vaccine. Positive experiences related to trial participation include gaining knowledge about HIV and personal health and receiving risk reduction counseling. Participants reported blood collection as a negative experience and that they suffered social harm because of trial participation. Participants felt abandoned after the trial ended. Conclusion: Preventive HIV vaccine trials should integrate a social-behavioral component to assess reasons for participation and refusal in real-time. Providing ongoing personal attention is crucial for young individuals who have committed 1-2 years to trial participation, extending beyond the trial period. Implementing tailored strategies for HIV risk assessment and reduction during and after the trial is essential. Addressing these factors can enhance preventive HIV vaccine trial implementation.
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.