Assessment of antiretroviral therapy knowledge and willingness of persons with HIV to support its uptake in Uganda
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Access to care and treatment services for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) are hampered by human resource constraints and knowledge gaps about antiretroviral therapy. Training people with HIV/AIDS (PWA) as educators on antiretroviral therapy may help in the expansion of antiretroviral therapy-related knowledge in Africa. The aim of this study was to assess the antiretroviral therapy-specific knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of PWA as well as their proactive communication with community members and to explore their willingness to serve as support personnel. METHODS: Data were obtained from a large randomized trial of PWA. We analyzed qualitative and quantitative data from 524 PWA aged 18 years and over who initiated home-based antiretroviral therapy in 2003. We assessed knowledge and communication of HIV prevention and treatment messages by PWA to communities using structured messages complemented with other knowledge questions and the willingness of PWA to serve as support persons. Descriptive bivariate associations and logistic regression statistical methods were performed. In addition, qualitative data analysis was used. RESULTS: The level of knowledge about antiretroviral therapy was high among all PWA on several technical attributes. Overall, 90% of PWA reported that they had been consulted by community members for informed opinions on antiretroviral therapy, 70% felt they were opinion leaders on aspects of antiretroviral therapy within the communities, and approximately 70% were willing to be engaged as community support persons. Those who were classified as opinion leaders reported being approached more regularly by community members for expert advice about antiretroviral therapy compared with nonopinion leaders (odds ratio [OR] 11.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3-18.6), and opinion leaders were significantly more informed on most technical attributes of antiretroviral therapy, such as "who qualifies for antiretroviral therapy based on CD4 count" (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.0) and "the need to be evaluated for antiretroviral therapy" (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.0). CONCLUSION: Opinion leaders demonstrated correct knowledge and willingness to provide information on antiretroviral therapy care and treatment issues and were, in turn, consulted more frequently for antiretroviral therapy advice compared with nonopinion leaders. Training opinion leaders to work as community support personnel may increase knowledge about antiretroviral therapy in underserved communities.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».