Perceived stigma among patients receiving antiretroviral treatment: A prospective randomised trial comparing an m-DOT strategy with standard-of- care in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV and AIDS remain highly stigmatised. Modified directly observed therapy (m-DOT) supports antiretroviral treatment (ART) adherence but little is known about its association with perceived stigma in resource-constrained settings. In 2003, 234 HIV-infected adults enrolled in a two-arm randomised trial comparing a health centre-based m-DOT strategy with standard self-administration of ART. Data on perceived stigma were collected using Berger's HIV stigma scale prior to starting ART and after 12 months. This was a secondary analysis to examine whether perceived stigma was related to treatment delivery. Perceived stigma scores declined after 12 months of treatment from a mean of 44.9 (sd=7.6) to a mean of 41.4 (sd=7.7), (t=6.14, P<0.001). No differences were found between the mean scores of participants in both study arms. Also, no difference in scores was detected using GLM, controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and baseline scores. Findings indicate that a well managed clinic-based m-DOT does not increase perceived HIV-related stigma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".