MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2012558623 · doi:10.1097/qai.0b013e31815e7466

Impact of Menopause on Condom Use by HIV-Seropositive and Comparison Seronegative Women

2008· letter· en· W2012558623 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
L. Stewart Massad, Charlesnika T. Evans, Tracey E. Wilson, Elizabeth T. Golub, Lakshmi Goparaju, Andrea A. Howard, Ruth M. Greenblatt, Kathleen M. Weber, Katherine Schilder

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2008
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloGlaxoSmithKlineNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbNational Center for Research ResourcesAbbott Laboratories
Mots-clésMedicineCondomMenopauseGynecologyLogistic regressionDemographyPopulationSexually transmitted diseaseObstetricsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineSyphilisInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: For women with HIV, condom use helps to prevent HIV transmission and sexually transmitted infections. Condoms also provide contraception. Despite this, condom use by HIV-infected women is far from universal1,2 and is less prevalent among women with HIV who do not need its contraceptive effects because they use alternate contraception or have been sterilized.3,4 We set out to determine how condom use changes as HIV-infected women pass through menopause in a substudy of the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS), a multicenter prospective cohort study of the natural history of HIV in HIV-infected women and comparison uninfected women.5 Written informed consent was obtained after local human subjects committee approval. At semiannual visits, women self-reported condom use and menopause, defined as no menses for 12 months. We excluded women with inadequate follow-up; seroconverters; women who reported menopause inconsistently; sexually abstinent women; and women who reported natural or surgical menopause at baseline, the first postenrollment visit, or the first available visit that included a report of vaginal sex with a male partner. Follow-up was censored at hysterectomy or ovarian surgery. Logistic regression analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations. Factors associated with condom use in a prior WIHS report6 and variables that changed the association between menopause status and condom use by >10% were included. These included HIV status, age, year, ethnicity, number of male sexual partners in the prior 6 months, smoking, alcohol and drug use, depression, or reporting of a sexually transmitted disease. After exclusions, we identified 1177 women with 9846 visits for analysis. Menopause was reported by 142 (15.6%) HIV-seropositive and 31 (11.7%) of HIV-seronegative women (P = 0.11). Women who reported passing through menopause during study reported condom use at 619 (74%) of 834 premenopausal visits and 528 (70%) of 754 postmenopausal visits (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99 to 1.54; P = 0.06). Lack of a significant association between menopause and condom use was confirmed in multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR for condom use at postmenopause visit = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.60; P = 0.93). Menopause also was not correlated with condom use in a multivariable analysis that included only women with HIV (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.21; P = 0.34). We also compared reporting of condoms at the postmenopause visits of women who reported menopause (n = 754) with reporting at visits by nonmenopausal women (n = 8258). The former were less likely to use condoms (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98; P = 0.03), but this association became nonsignificant in multivariable analysis, including adjustment for HIV serostatus (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.4; P = 0.93). Condom use has been shown to decline with age,6-8 but this study shows that the perception of menopause does not alter condom use among women with HIV, even though menopausal women no longer need condoms to prevent pregnancy. This study is limited by reliance on self-report to determine menopause and condom use. We could not determine the impact of self-selection for study or repeated safe sex messages at study visits on condom use on generalizability of results. Aging women with HIV need to support continued use of condoms to protect themselves and their partners from disease transmission. L. Stewart Massad, MD* Charlesnika T. Evans, PhD† Tracey E. Wilson, PhD‡ Elizabeth T. Golub, PhD§ Lakshmi Goparaju, PhD∥ Andrea Howard, MD¶ Ruth M. Greenblatt, MD# Kathleen Weber, RN** Katherine Schilder, ND** *Southern Illinois University School of Medicine Springfield, IL †University of Illinois Chicago, IL ‡SUNY Downstate Medical Center Brooklyn, NY §Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, MD ∥Georgetown University Washington, DC ¶Montefiore Medical Center Bronx, NY #University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA **CORE Center of the John H. Stroger Jr Hospital of Cook County Chicago, IL

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

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesMême sujetHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsTravaux en français237 207