Barriers to HIV treatment among people who use injection drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent research has confirmed the efficacy of employing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) to prevent the transmission of HIV. However, barriers to the use of HAART among people who use injection drugs (PWIDs) remain an international concern. We review recent findings regarding factors determining effective HIV treatment among PWIDs and describe their possible impact on efforts to curb HIV incidence using HAART. RECENT FINDINGS: Internationally, HIV-seropositive PWIDs continue to experience suboptimal HIV treatment outcomes compared with other risk groups. Recent findings have better elucidated the role of ongoing illicit drug use in limiting access and adherence to HAART. However, recent research has also increasingly demonstrated the important role that social, environmental and structural factors, resulting from the criminalization of PWIDs, have in placing barriers to optimal HAART use among this population. SUMMARY: Treatment as prevention strategies for PWIDs will only be maximally effective if structural barriers to effective addiction and HIV treatment, which stem from the ongoing criminalization of this population, are addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".