Impact of HIV testing on uptake of HIV therapy among antiretroviral naive HIV-infected injection drug users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving access to antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users remains an urgent public health concern. We examined the time to antiretroviral therapy (ART) use among antiretroviral naive HIV-infected injection drug users who were unaware of their HIV status to examine the impact of receipt of HIV test results on uptake of ART. Time to ART use was examined using Kaplan - Meier methods, and factors associated with the time to ART were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Between May 1996 and May 2003, 312 HIV-infected individuals were enrolled into the Barriers to Antiretroviral Therapy (BART) cohort, among whom 105 (33.7%) reported not knowing their HIV status at baseline. At 24 months post-baseline, those participants who returned for test results within 8 months initiated ART at a significantly elevated rate [adjusted relative hazard = 1.87 (95% CI: 1.05 - 3.33)]. These findings demonstrate the potential to improve uptake of ART among injection drug users through targeted HIV testing and counselling initiatives that encourage the receipt of HIV test results, and suggest that strategies to improve awareness of HIV infection may improve access to antiretroviral therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".