Travel patterns and risk behaviour of HIV-positive people travelling internationally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International travel is associated with an increased risk of enteric, vector-borne, sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections. These risks are even higher among immunocompromised people, such as those with HIV infection. We conducted a study to determine HIV-positive people's travel patterns and risk behaviours while abroad. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous survey of HIV-positive people attending an HIV clinic in a tertiary care hospital in Toronto about their travel activities and pretravel precautions as well as their burden of illness and risk exposure during travel. We compared the characteristics of respondents who had travelled outside Canada and the United States (international travellers) with those of respondents who had not travelled internationally. RESULTS: Of 290 HIV-positive people who participated in the study, 133 (45.9%) indicated that they had travelled internationally in the 5 years before the survey. These people were predominantly men (93.2%) and well educated (60.0% had a university level education), and they had travelled mostly for personal reasons (89.5%) on trips that lasted 3.6 weeks on average. Only 58 (43.6%) sought health advice before travelling, and only 17 (12.8%) sought advice from a travel clinic. Five (3.8%) had received live vaccines before travel, and 9 (6.8%) had taken malaria chemoprophylaxis. Of the 119 international travellers who were taking antiretroviral therapy; 35 (29.4%) reported either discontinuing their medications or being poorly compliant with the therapy while travelling. Thirty-one (23.3%) of the 133 international travellers reported having had casual sexual activity with new partners while travelling, and only 18 (58.1%) of them reported always using a condom. Twenty-one (15.8%) of the 133 reported having had risky exposure to sharps. Twenty-four (18.0%) said they had become ill enough while travelling to require medical attention. INTERPRETATION: Only one-fifth of HIV-positive people surveyed who travelled internationally sought advice from a health professional before their trip. Their travel was associated with poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy, risky sexual practices and risky exposure to sharps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".