Prevalence and Contexts of Inconsistent Condom Use Among Heterosexual Men and Women Living with HIV in India: Implications for Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation examined sexual behaviors among heterosexual persons living with HIV (PLHIV) in India. Study participants (mostly married) were interviewed during August to November 2006 in five Indian states using a quantitative survey (n = 100 men and 100 women), eight focus groups (n = 58 participants), and in-depth interviews (n = 31). One third of men and one fourth of women reported inconsistent condom use with regular sexual partners. Facilitators of condom use with regular partners included a feeling of personal responsibility to protect the health of the partner, desire to prevent acquisition and/or transmission of sexually transmitted infections, and the belief that condoms are needed for antiretroviral therapy to be effective. Barriers to consistent condom use with regular partners included the belief that condoms are unnecessary in HIV-positive seroconcordant relationships; lack of sexual satisfaction with condoms; the desire to have a child; husband's alcohol use, depression, and anxiety; fear that disclosure of HIV status will bring marital discord and family shame; and inadequate counseling by health care providers. Positive prevention programs should include counseling about benefits of safer sex in HIV-positive seroconcordant relationships, counseling about integrating condom use with sexual satisfaction and intimacy, condom use self-efficacy and negotiation skills-building, family planning counseling, mental health and alcohol dependence treatment, and counseling and skills-building about disclosure. Health care providers must be trained to provide these services. Furthermore, efforts are needed to promote tolerance for family planning choices made by couples and to counter the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS and condoms in the broader society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".