Contraception Use among Iranian Women With HIV: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of family planning methods to people with HIV not only prevents unwanted pregnancy, but also leads to a reduction in the possibility of transmission of the virus from the patient to the sexual partner and the fetus. In order to prevent the spread of HIV and enhance reproductive rights, it is necessary to inform women with HIV of the contraception methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore experiences of HIV positive women about contraception use. METHOD: This qualitative study was conducted on 18 women with HIV who were at reproductive age and had referred the Center for clients with Risky Behavior in Imam Khomeini Hospital. Data were analyzed using the conventional content analysis method in MAXQDA 10. RESULTS: The following two themes were derived from descriptions of the use of contraception methods by women with HIV: 1) Contraception is the forgotten component of reproductive health services; 2) inconsistent condom use. Each theme also contained three sub-themes. CONCLUSION: Results of investigations showed that Risky Behavior consultation Centers mostly stress the use of condom for husband/sexual partners without HIV. In addition, since health care practitioners play an important role in provision of reproductive health services, their lack of knowledge and cooperation considerably contribute to the spread of the disease and violation of patient rights.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".