| Title |
Parents’ Perspectives About Adolescent Boys’ Involvement in Biomedical HIV Prevention Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Sexual Behavior, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10508-017-1035-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian Mustanski, Kathryn Macapagal, Matthew Thomann, Brian A. Feinstein, Michael E. Newcomb, Darnell Motley, Celia B. Fisher |
| Abstract |
Research on the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among adolescents at high risk for HIV is urgently needed, and parents' perspectives on these studies are essential for guiding the responsible conduct of adolescent PrEP research. We conducted interviews with 30 parents of adolescent boys (50% known/presumed heterosexual; 50% sexual minority) to understand their views of research risks and benefits and parental permission regarding their son's involvement in a hypothetical PrEP adherence trial. Parents identified several health and educational benefits of the study and expressed that waiving parental permission would overcome barriers to accessing PrEP, particularly for youth who may benefit most. Among their concerns were medication non-adherence and risk compensation. Parents provided suggestions to facilitate informed, rational, and voluntary participation decisions and protect youth's safety if parental permission was waived. These findings can inform ways to increase parental trust in PrEP research and create adequate protections for adolescent participants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 67% |
| South Africa | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Psychology | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 43 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,234,071
of 24,793,937 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#1,043
of 3,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,001
of 320,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#15
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,793,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 320,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.