Acceptability and Feasibility of a Cell Phone Support Intervention for Youth Living with HIV with Nonadherence to Antiretroviral Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot randomized clinical trial of youth ages 15-24 nonadherent to antiretroviral therapy (ART) utilizing daily cell phone support was found to have significant improvement in self-reported adherence and HIV RNA. Understanding acceptability and feasibility is critical for future implementation in clinic settings. Exit interviews were obtained from participants and adherence facilitators (AF). Acceptability was assessed from content analysis of exit interviews. Feasibility was assessed via intervention retention and study retention rates. Thirty-seven eligible youth were enrolled with 19 assigned to the intervention. Seven (37%) discontinued the intervention either due to missing over 20% of calls for two consecutive months (N=5) or missing 10 consecutive calls (N=2). Sixteen participants completed exit interviews, 15 reported the call length was just right, 13 reported they would have liked to continue calls after the 24-week intervention, and all participants reported they would recommend the intervention to friends. Scheduling and making calls required less than 1 h per week per participant. Providing cell phone support to youth nonadherent to ART was acceptable and feasible. While the cost is low compared to the price of ART, healthcare systems will need to explore how to cover the cost of providing cell phones (incentive).
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".