Qualitative study reveals communication strategies and challenges for recruiting participants in HIV vaccine trials, indicating ways to enhance engagement.
An estimated 40.8 million people of all ages worldwide were living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as of the end of 2024. The conduct and advancement of HIV vaccine trials is contingent upon successful participant recruitment and messaging. This study examined the current recruitment landscape and communication strategies for a future HIV vaccine using first-hand accounts of recruitment staff at various HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) sites in the United States. We conducted key informant in-depth interviews with eleven researchers at various HVTN sites between September 2024 and January 2025. We analyzed the qualitative data using Rapid Assessment Procedures to efficiently identify content and gaps in data, and comparison of similarities and differences across participants. We identified emergent themes after the iterative process and extracted salient quotes to illustrate each theme. Analyses revealed that effective recruitment entails: (1) multifaceted and layered approaches, including in-person and digital outreach approaches, across different broadcast mediums, venues, and online sites; (2) tailoring of strategies to specific cultural and identity groups, and (3) building trust in the community about the research. However, recruitment is hindered by HIV stigma and vaccine misconceptions. Researchers highlighted the importance of using plain language to describe a future HIV vaccine and recommend positioning vaccine campaigns as universal prevention initiatives to emphasize that HIV prevention is relevant to all individuals, rather than being associated with specific demographic groups. Insights from researchers’ recruitment experiences can strengthen HIV vaccine trials and be used to craft compelling messages that position the vaccine as part of a comprehensive set of HIV prevention strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: