Yes, qualitative methods are appropriate because they are interested in understanding the experience of HIV diagnosis for Black men and whether or not there is a theme among participants.

Or is "meaning" pretty specific? I think the meaning of HIV to each person can mean a wide range of things based on identity centrality, so a qualitative approach would allow researchers a general understanding of what such meanings can be, to then build from there.

Idk

1) Yes. The researchers stated descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey responses and explained how the specific code was developed and applied to the data.

What about the analysis process of the interviews?

2) Idk?

3) Idk?

4) Idk?

5) Idk?

6) No. The researchers never critically examined their own role, potential bias, or influence during the analysis and selection of data for presentation.

No (?)

1) No. There are insufficient details surrounding how this research was explained to participants, making it difficult to determine whether ethical standards were maintained.

2) No. There was no discussion around issues of informed consent, confidentiality, handling of effects of the study on participants following the study. This is a considerable issue considering the delicacy of the research being done in relation to healthcare.

3) Yes. IRB approval was said to have been received and informed consent upon participation.

Extra) The data obtained from the study though was not made public. This was to protect the participant's confidentiality. However, some conversations were included explicitly along with the general age of the participant, when an extrapolation occured.

No (?), the relationship between researcher and participants was not adequately considered

1) No. The reseacher failed to critically examine their own role, potential bias, and influence during formulation of research questions, data collection, sample recruitment, or choice of location.

2) The was no discussion on any responses to events during the study, nor the implications of any changes in research design.

Uncertain (mainly bc of setting i think)

1) No (?). The settings for data collection were not justified. Although the use of a public hospital can remove perceived barriers of social class (?), the location in a hospital itself instills a certain power dynamic in the participants. They are the patient, objectified, being examined. This may compound with the dynamic with the interviwers themselfs as it creates a predisposition of a perceived power imbalance. Consequently, this may impact the depth of truthfullness. The privacy of the office space however is a benefit as it reduces outside noise/backroudn.

Additionally, one who had particular bad experiences with medical community may be less likely to either participate or speak as honest due to the feeling of being in a hostile environment (you going into someone's house to tell them how much of a bad person they are, territory, contested grounds)

2 & 3) Yes & Uncertain(?). The researcher was clear that quantitative, in-person surveys were first used to characterize the participants according to personal factors (age, housing location, etc), sexual related behaviors and health. Date of HIV diagnosis was received to understand the sociocultural context at which their experiences began with. No one facilitated the surveys; however, researchers were always present if the participant was unsure on something.

In the following section, one-on-one semi-structured, English interviews were then used. This was chosen to get a broad grasp of what the participants experienced in regarding care following their diagnosis, expanding on the prior survey's questions. Facilitating these interviews were three researchers who received training by a specialist in behavioral science and qualitative methodology. There was no justification for doing so although it might be clear.

4) Yes The survey methods were explicitly provided. The interview methods were not explicitly provided; however, the guide that was generally used to guide the said 90-120 minute long interview was provided. This included an introductory preface and related questions for certain target subjects (barriers to linkage, barriers to retention, barriers to medical adherence, cultural identity, perspective on solutions). This guide was used to prompt discussions on specific aspects on related topics as they came up in conversation. It is unclear the extent to which researchers abided by this guide, strayed, etc.

6) It was never mentioned that methods were modified during the study. But, it might have been helpful to note which additional questions may have been asked if they were noticeably distinct from the general HIV care continuum, as this might be helpful in reproducing similar thought-provoking conversations in future (retestable).

7) The form of the data is clearly stated as audio recordings which were then transcribed in full by a professional.

8) Recruitment occurred until saturation was reached. Yet, no further discussion was provided on saturation.

Can't tell (?)

1) Yes. The researcher explained how the participants were selected. Multiple sources of voluntary participation (in-person recruitment and not-personal recruitment, online and offline platforms, community events, ) were used. Although the reasoning was to attain a diverse sample, it may have been beneficial to elaborate on the specific barriers being crossed via the sources used. Such as they accesseed a wide range of identities within those HIV+ Black men with varrying openness of sexuality.

Additionally, the researcher stated they had various inclusion criteria (language, age, gender, race, area of residence, sexual activity, competentcy) and that it was self-reproted versus prescriptive

$40 compensation was provided to participants who did the full interview. However, it does not say if this was an incentive and how that price was reasoned as acceptable.

2) No. The researcher failed to explain why the participants selected were the most appropriate to provide access to the meaning of HIV status to Black, MSM. It is rather implied given the participant's inclusion criteria relative to the target population.

3) Yes. The researcher provided discussion around recruitnment. They stated a small cohort was used. They stated that although mutliple sources of recruitment were used, the marjoity came from healthcare settings. Likewise, the use of self-reporting HIV status (to reach a more diverse sample) and localization to only one area of the city, but failed to explain how these were limitations. They stated the consistent ethnic, sexual orientation, and sexuality activity (within 1 year) also limited external validity to the target population of Black MSM. They explained why, stating the experiences of Black, immigrant HIV+ MSM is not fully represented by the lived experience of immigrant versus bisexual participants.

However, researchers failed to provide explict reasons why some potential participants chose not to participate.

They did state that the use of in-person, in-depth interviews may have led to selection bias though since these individuals are more likely engaged in care. Consequently, they only learned of those expereinces of who were "retained in-care", impeding on accessing those who have not been retained.

THIS IS what you wanna focus on mainly

Yes, wants to understand what HIV+ means to Black people and how it has changed with time

Statement of Findings - MAIN SUM

Sorta a summary of purpose for the narratives

Discussion on Recruitment

Stigma Def

Relationship between status loss and health lifestyle

More Detailed Paragraph on Social & Economic Determinants of Health

Good Summary of Social & Economic Determinants of Health

Importance of healthy lifestyle behaviors