Women’s Health Care Utilization among Harder-to-Reach HIV-Infected Women ever on Antiretroviral Therapy in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. HIV-infected women are disproportionately burdened by gynaecological complications, psychological disorders, and certain sexually transmitted infections that may not be adequately addressed by HIV-specific care. We estimate the prevalence and covariates of women's health care (WHC) utilization among harder-to-reach, treatment-experienced HIV-infected women in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods. We used survey data from 231 HIV-infected, treatment-experienced women enrolled in the Longitudinal Investigations into Supportive and Ancillary Health Services (LISA) study, which recruited harder-to-reach populations, including aboriginal people and individuals using injection drugs. Independent covariates of interest included sociodemographic, psychosocial, behavioural, individual health status, structural factors, and HIV clinical variables. Logistic regression was used to generate adjusted estimates of associations between use of WHC and covariates of interest. Results. Overall, 77% of women reported regularly utilizing WHC. WHC utilization varied significantly by region of residence (P value <0.01). In addition, women with lower annual income (AOR (95% CI) = 0.14 (0.04-0.54)), who used illicit drugs (AOR (95% CI) = 0.42 (0.19-0.92)) and who had lower provider trust (AOR (95% CI) = 0.97 (0.95-0.99)), were significantly less likely to report using WHC. Conclusion. A health service gap exists along geographical and social axes for harder-to-reach HIV-infected women in BC. Women-centered WHC and HIV-specific care should be streamlined and integrated to better address women's holistic health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".