Prevention of sexual risk behavior for HIV infection with women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper defines the components of gender-specific interventions for HIV infections for women, i.e. negotiation skills with male partners for condom use, integration of strategies against HIV and other STD infections and for contraception, the urgent need for female controlled methods, the importance of the inclusion of heterosexual men and an expansion to couples in prevention programs. This paper also presents a critical update in HIV prevention articles for women since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic through March 1996. All reviewed interventions were conducted in the U.S., Canada or Puerto Rico and described a psychological, behavioral, or educational component that addressed sexual risk reduction and included a behavioral evaluation. Manual and computer searches identified 47 studies that targeted women and provided a female-specific analysis of intervention effects. Overall, the findings demonstrate that HIV prevention programs can be effective in reducing risky sexual behavior among women. Program effectiveness varied by intervention type, session duration, and whether studies included women alone or both men and women. The most efficacious HIV prevention programs were specifically directed toward women, focused on relationship and negotiation skills, and involved multiple, sustained contacts. Evidence also indicated that community-level interventions hold promise. It is recommended that outcomes for women be expanded to include strategies beyond the male condom, such as refusing or avoiding unsafe sex or using the female condom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".