Perceived stigma by children on antiretroviral treatment in Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-related stigma diminishes the quality of life of affected patients. Little is known about perceived and enacted stigma of HIV-infected children in resources-limited settings. We documented the prevalence of perceived stigma and associated factors associated among children on antiretroviral therapy (ART) at a referral hospital in Cambodia. METHODS: After informed consent, a standardized pre-tested 47-item questionnaire was confidentially administered to consecutive children (7 to 15 years) or their guardians if the child was 18 months to 6 years, during their routine ART visits. The questionnaire explored the sociodemographics of the child and the parents, HIV history, adherence to ART, tolerance of ART and perceived stigma. Associations between perceived stigma and the children's characteristics were measured by bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of 183 children, 101 (55.2%) had lost at least one and 45 (24.6%) both parents; 166 (90.7%) went to school. Of 183 children (female: 84, 45.9%, median age 7.0 years, interquartile range: 2.0-9.6), 79 (43.2%) experienced perceived stigma, including rejection by others (26.8%), no invitations to social activities (18.6%) and exclusion from games (14.2%). A total of 43 (23.5%) children were fearful of their disease and 61 (53.9%) of 113 older than 6 years reported knowledge of their HIV status. Of 136 children over five years and eligible for education, 7 (3.8%) could not go to school due to perceived stigma. Incomplete adherence to ART was reported for 17 (9.2%) children. In multivariate analysis, school attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-7.9) and income of less than one dollar per person per day (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.5) were associated with perceived stigma. Conversely, receipt of social support (OR: 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) was associated with lower risk of perceived stigma. CONCLUSION: Perceived stigma in pediatric ART patients remains a significant issue in Cambodia. Psychological support and interventions should be developed in hospitals, schools, and underprivileged communities to prevent HIV-related stigma for affected children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".