Contraceptive options for <scp>HIV</scp>‐positive women: making evidence‐based, patient‐centred decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Women of reproductive age represent a large proportion of the global population living with HIV/AIDS. With improvements in morbidity and mortality since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy, contraception and pregnancy planning are an increasingly important issue for women living with HIV. This review aims to outline the key considerations when choosing contraceptive methods in HIV-positive women and provides a review of the literature to inform decision-making. METHODS: Pubmed was searched using the terms 'HIV', 'contraception', 'HIV progression', 'HIV acquisition', 'HIV transmission' and the combination of 'antiretroviral' and 'contraception'. Abstracts were reviewed and relevant articles were retrieved. Reference lists were also reviewed for pertinent citations. RESULTS: HIV and contraceptive methods can interact in several clinically meaningful ways. Concomitant use may result in altered contraceptive efficacy, drug-drug interactions, or increased toxicity. Hormonal contraceptives have not been shown to affect HIV progression. Notably, the impact of hormonal contraceptives on HIV transmission and acquisition remains unclear, particularly for injectable forms. Data are lacking on several newer methods of contraception including contraceptive rings, patches and intrauterine systems. CONCLUSIONS: Effective, reliable contraception is important for HIV-positive women. Efficacy, toxicity, drug interactions, and potential impacts on HIV disease progression, transmission, and acquisition must be assessed when making clinical decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".