↓ Skip to main content

Using surrogate vaccines to assess feasibility and acceptability of future HIV vaccine trials in men: a randomised trial in inner-city Johannesburg, South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using surrogate vaccines to assess feasibility and acceptability of future HIV vaccine trials in men: a randomised trial in inner-city Johannesburg, South Africa
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4355-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Chimoyi, Mphatso Kamndaya, Emilie Venables, Nina von Knorring, Jonathan Stadler, Catherine MacPhail, Matthew F. Chersich, Helen Rees, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe

Abstract

Developing an effective HIV vaccine is the overriding priority for HIV prevention research. Enrolling and maintaining cohorts of men into HIV vaccine efficacy trials is a necessary prerequisite for the development and licensure of a safe and efficacious vaccine. One hundred-fifty consenting HIV-negative men were enrolled into a pilot 1:1 randomised controlled trial of immediate vaccination with a three-dose hepatitis B vaccine compared to deferred vaccination (at 12 months) to investigate feasibility and acceptability of a future HIV vaccine trial in this population. Adverse events, changes in risk behaviour, acceptability of trial procedures and motivations for participation in future trials were assessed. Men were a median 25 years old (inter-quartile range = 23-29), 53% were employed, 90% secondary school educated and 67% uncircumcised. Of the 900 scheduled study visits, 90% were completed in the immediate vaccination arm (405/450) and 88% (396/450) in the delayed arm (P = 0.338). Acceptability of trial procedures and services was very high overall. However, only 65% of the deferred group strongly liked being randomised compared to 90% in the immediate group (P = 0.001). Informed consent processes were viewed favourably by 92% of the delayed and 82% of the immediate group (P = 0.080). Good quality health services, especially if provided by a male nurse, were rated highly. Even though almost all participants had some concern about the safety of a future HIV vaccine (98%), the majority were willing to participate in a future trial. Future trial participation would be motivated mainly by the potential for accessing an effective vaccine (81%) and altruism (75%), rather than by reimbursement incentives (2%). Recruitment and retention of men into vaccine trials is feasible and acceptable in our setting. Findings from this surrogate vaccine trial show a high willingness to participate in future HIV vaccine trials. While access to potentially effective vaccines is important, quality health services are an equally compelling incentive for enrolment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 39 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,467,628
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,425
of 14,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,345
of 313,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#188
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.