Clinician-Initiated HIV Risk Reduction Intervention for HIV-Positive Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct research on levels and dynamics of HIV risk behavior among HIV-positive patients in clinical care, use this research to design a clinician-initiated HIV prevention intervention for HIV-positive patients, and evaluate the acceptability of the intervention to clinicians and patients and the fidelity with which it can be delivered by clinicians. METHODS: Study 1 (elicitation research) involved focus groups with HIV-positive patients and HIV care clinicians to understand the dynamics of HIV risk behavior among HIV-positive patients and how to integrate HIV prevention into routine clinical care. Study 2 (acceptability and intervention fidelity) involved the evaluation of 1455 medical visits by experimental intervention patients (N = 231) for acceptability and fidelity of the clinician-initiated HIV prevention intervention. RESULTS: Elicitation research with patients and clinicians identified critical HIV prevention information, motivation, and behavioral skills deficits in HIV-positive patients as well as risky sexual behavior. These findings were integrated into a theory-based HIV prevention intervention initiated by clinicians that proved acceptable to clinicians and patients and that clinicians were able to implement with adequate fidelity. CONCLUSION: HIV prevention interventions by clinicians treating HIV-positive patients can and should be integrated into routine clinical care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".