ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Risks and benefits of engaging youth living with HIV in research: perspectives from Kenyan Youth, caregivers, and subject matter experts.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of young people living with HIV and caregivers in Botswana on analytical treatment interruption studies: a qualitative approach.HIV research & clinical practice · 2026Article
- The ethics of research involving biobanking specimens from Kenyan children and adolescents living with HIV: discrepancies between individual perceptions and policy considerations.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Intentions and attitudes of caregivers towards enrolment of their children and adolescents living with HIV into remission trials involving analytic treatment interruption.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvolving children and adolescents (youth) living with HIV (YLWH) in research is critical for developing appropriate HIV care services and interventions. However, this vulnerable population may not adequately weigh risks against benefits when participating in research, forming an ethical concern, yet little is known about how YLWH perceive these risks and benefits. To inform research-related policies and procedures, we sought perspectives of Kenyan YLWH, their caregivers and subject matter experts (SMEs) on risks and benefits of participation in research in a setting with a high burden of youth HIV infection.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative inquiry on identifying, enrolling, and protecting YLWH (age 10-24 years) in research using semi-structured interviews with YLWH involved in research, their caregivers, YLWH with no prior research experience, and other SMEs at the AMPATH care and research sites in western Kenya. Transcripts were thematically analyzed and emerging themes derived to characterize perspectives of each group on risks and benefits of engaging YLWH in research.
resultsInterviews were conducted with 40 YLWH (50% female; median age 17.5 years), 20 caregivers (70% female), and 39 SMEs [healthcare providers (N = 10), community leaders (N = 10) community advisory board members (N = 4), IRB experts (N = 5), clinical researchers (N = 6), social science researchers (N = 4) and laboratory experts (N = 1).] Participants in all groups identified accidental disclosure of HIV status, stigma and discrimination, risks of blood draws, mental health effects, and coercion due to study compensation as risks of research involvement. Benefits fell into 5 categories: clinical, informational, personal, future and community or household benefits. Benefits included access to health care, learning about HIV, gaining hope and community, improving HIV care, and reducing stigma. All participant groups largely held similar views; however, caregivers were the only group to identify misuse of study compensation as a risk, and YLWH less frequently cited clinical benefits.
conclusionThese findings suggest that participants commonly cite indirect risks and benefits of research participation, yet these are often excluded from institutional guidelines for consent documentation. Researchers should consider including indirect risks and benefits, such as the risk of stigma or the benefit of gaining knowledge and community, to study documentation.
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.