A review of reproductive health research, guidelines and related gaps for women living with HIV
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of pregnancy and motherhood in women living with HIV (WLWH) has concentrated on the health of the unborn baby and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission, whereas consideration of the broader aspects of women's reproductive health has been largely overlooked. The rights of WLWH with respect to their reproductive health should be exactly the same as non-HIV-positive women, however, inequalities exist due to discrimination and also because the treatment guidelines used in the care of women are often based on insufficient evidence. The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on reproductive health issues for WLWH and to identify gaps requiring further investigation. Our review indicates that further research is warranted into a number of aspects of reproductive health among WLWH. Currently, access to the relevant reproductive health resources and services, such as advice on contraception and fertility services, for WLWH is far from optimal in many developed countries and most developing countries. More data are needed on the most appropriate family planning options with the consideration of drug interactions between contraceptives and antiretroviral therapy and the risk of HIV transmission. Also, more research is needed to improve understanding of the maternal health challenges facing WLWH. Similarly, our understanding of the impact of HIV on the physical and emotional health of pregnant women and new mothers is far from complete. Answering these questions and countering these inequalities will help to ensure the reproductive health and child-bearing intentions of WLWH become an integral part of HIV medicine.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it