ArticlePloS one2025
"I don't see a reason why we should be hidden from view": Views of a convenience sample of people living with HIV on sharing HIV status data in routinely collected health and care databases in England.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating life course perspectives into research involving people living with perinatally acquired HIV.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople living with HIV (PLWH) now have near-normal life-expectancy, but still experience stigma, and HIV status is treated as sensitive health information. When UK healthcare patient data is curated into anonymised datasets for research, HIV diagnostic codes are stripped out. As PLWH age, we must research how HIV affects conditions of ageing, but cannot do so in current NHS research datasets. We aimed to elicit views on HIV status being shared in NHS datasets, and identify appropriate safeguards.
methodsWe conducted three focus groups with a convenience sample of PLWH recruited through HIV charities, presenting information on data governance, data-sharing, patient privacy, law, and research areas envisaged for HIV and ageing. Each focus group involved two presentations, a question session, and facilitated breakout discussion groups. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
results37 PLWH (age range 23-58y) took part. The overarching theme was around trust, both the loss of trust experienced by participants due to previous negative or discriminatory experiences, and the need to slowly build trust in data-sharing initiatives. Further themes showed that participants were supportive of data being used for research and health care improvements, but needed a guarantee that their privacy would be protected. A loss of trust in systems and organisations using the data, suspicion of data users' agendas, and worry about increased discrimination and stigmatisation made them cautious about data sharing. To rebuild trust participants wanted to see transparent security protocols, accountability for following these, and communication about data flows and uses, as well as awareness training about HIV, and clear involvement of PLWH as full stakeholders on project teams and decision-making panels.
conclusionsPLWH were cautiously in favour of their data being shared for research into HIV, where this could be undertaken with high levels of security, and the close involvement of PLWH to set research agendas and avoid increased stigma.
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.