Communiquer avec son entourage sur son traitement aide-t-il les femmes impliquées dans le commerce du sexe à l'observer?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The number of HIV trials in Africa is increasing, and they target population groups with high HIV incidence, such as sex workers. Little information, however, is available about the adherence to long-term therapy among such marginalized groups with few economic resources and poor social and family support. A project called "Yerelon" ("know herself" in the Dioula language) began in 1998 in Bobo-Dioulasso to improve the health of women involved in commercial sex through STI/HIV prevention and care adapted to them. This study was conducted before introducing long-term treatment to the population, to assess the effect of communication with those around them on the capacity of these vulnerable women to adhere to drug prescriptions. METHODS: The study was based on interviews conducted during the pilot phase of a 3-month trial of vitamins with potential participants. It concerned two groups of women: one group was infected with HIV (N = 22), the other was not (N = 20); all women in both groups were infected by HSV-2, however. For 5 weeks, the two psychologists of the study team in charge of adherence assessment carried out weekly in-depth interviews with the participants. The qualitative data analysis was organised around several themes. The data were related to aspects of communication with family and friends, serologic results, and adherence. RESULTS: According to our definition of communication about treatment, 20 participants communicated with their family and friends; adherence was good for all but three of them. Women who reported that they were married or living with someone (7/42) nearly all spoke about the study treatment (06/07) with him. Of 16 participants living in a family, 10 communicated with them about the treatment. On the other hand, as seems logical, single women who lived alone spoke less often about the treatment with family and friends (04/19). Talking about the treatment did not appear to involve the family or friends in the treatment; no one reminded any participant, whether she lived alone or in a family, to take her medicine. Nor did this discussion seem "helpful" to any of the women. Twenty-two participants hid the study treatment from family and friends; adherence was good for all but two of these. Social management of the treatment was related to HIV serologic status and relationships with family and friends. Concern about gossip about HIV status made it difficult to integrate the treatment into conversation. Those who did not agree to communicate with their family about the treatment did not even take the drug in the sight of the others. Sometimes, refusal to communicate was aimed at avoiding disapproval when the family did not have a favorable perception of prolonged treatment. Hiding the treatment was not an obstacle to good adherence. Adherence was related to perception of the treatment more than to communication about it. CONCLUSION: Adherence was similar in cases with and without communication. It appeared that these marginalized women, without social networks, were able to adhere correctly to a long-term treatment. To minimize the risks of non-adherence, the support system planned must take into account the factors influencing perceptions of the drug. Specific psychological support centered on the relation with the drug appears necessary during treatment initiation and follow up.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Observationnel | low |
| gpt | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Autre devis | low |
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéeÉtiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.
Les modèles divergent sur des parties de cette classification; chaque voix est préservée dans la section en fin de page.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».