ReviewPublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Informed Consent in Molecular HIV Epidemiology: A Rapid Review of the Literature to Identify Concerns and Recommendations.
Review in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
In the United States, molecular HIV epidemiology (MHE) is a key part of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which incorporates the evaluation of HIV genetic sequences for cluster detection and response. Data collection for MHE occurs without any requirement for formal consent from patients, which has sparked ethical concerns among community members, ethicists, and advocates. We conducted a rapid review of the current literature on informed consent and MHE to understand the key concerns and recommendations. We searched 4 academic databases and included articles that examined the issue of informed consent in MHE practices. We screened a total of 119 articles and selected 30 articles for inclusion. From these, we extracted data pertaining to concerns and recommendations related to informed consent in MHE, including MHE in the context of both research and surveillance. Our findings revealed 2 main categories of concerns: (1) challenges in obtaining valid informed consent and (2) concerns related to the current lack of consent such as risks of data misuse, privacy violations, and potential stigma. We identified 3 main categories of recommendations: establishing stronger data governance, developing ethical consent practices, and increasing community engagement. A key theme identified was an unresolved contestation about the ethics of using MHE without consent and whether the potential public health benefits of MHE justify concerns about autonomy, privacy, and potential harm. Future directions include the need for empirical research to evaluate the risks and benefits of MHE and the development of practices for meaningful community engagement to ensure ethical and context-sensitive approaches.
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.