Need, demand and missed opportunities for integrated reproductive health–HIV care in Kenya and Swaziland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the need and demand for integrated reproductive health and HIV services at the population level. DESIGN: Descriptive data analysis of household surveys collected by the Integra Initiative. METHODS: Household surveys were conducted among 18-49-year-olds in Kenya (N = 1752) and Swaziland (N = 779) in 2009. Data on fertility intentions, contraceptive use, sexual behaviours and HIV testing were used to determine unmet needs. Demand for integrated services was defined as wanting reproductive health services with HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) services within one visit. RESULTS: At the population level, family planning needs (90%) were higher than HIV/STI prevention needs: 53% (women) and 75% (men). Fewer had unmet family planning needs through non-use of contraceptives: 17% (women) and 27% (men); versus unmet HIV/STI prevention needs through inconsistent condom use: 48 and 26% of women; 51 and 32% of men in Kenya and Swaziland, respectively. Dual need was higher for men: 64% (Kenya) and 73% (Swaziland) versus women (48%) with more unmet in Kenya (43%) compared to Swaziland (25%). Missed opportunities for integrated service provision were high among women: 49 and 57% with unmet family planning needs; and 55 and 32% with unmet HIV/STI prevention needs in Kenya and Swaziland, respectively, used services, but did not receive the needed service. Most men with unmet needs were non-service users. Approximately a quarter of women wanted and received integrated reproductive health-HIV/STI services in both countries. CONCLUSIONS: Demand creation at the community level and provider-initiated integrated service provision are needed, using different strategies for men and women, to address substantial family planning and HIV/STI prevention needs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".