The Paradox of Family Support: Concerns of Tuberculosis-Infected HIV Patients About Involving Family and Friends in Their Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widely documented evidence that family support improves adherence to HIV treatment, some studies have reported no benefit or even a negative association between family support and adherence. This study reexamined the role of family support in treatment adherence to find out the circumstances under which family support for HIV and tuberculosis coinfected patients promotes or hinders treatment adherence in Cross River State, Nigeria. We conducted eight focus group discussions (FGDs) and four case histories with coinfected patients. In addition, 21 in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with: 8 family members, 6 friends, and 7 care providers. Data were analyzed in a thematic format with the aid of NVIVO software. Overall, family support promotes adherence in coinfected patients. Family support may, however, have a negative effect on adherence when the recipient perceives that the support is given with ulterior motives (e.g., gossiping about them and becoming indebted to the support givers) and when the recipient is the primary breadwinner and feels that this role is being undermined. Family support is useful as a tool for scaling up adherence but the usefulness is context-specific and mediated by the patient's subjective interpretation of the support givers' motives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".