Gender-Related Differences in Quality of Life Domains of Persons Living with HIV/AIDS in South India in the Era Prior to Greater Access to Antiretroviral Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to examine gender-based differences in the quality of life of men and women living with HIV in South India in the era prior to greater access to antiretroviral therapy. The participants in this prospective longitudinal study consisted of 215 men and 141 women who were administered a quality of life (QOL) instrument comprising five scales: physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, satisfaction with health care, and strength of partner relationship. Interviews were conducted at enrollment and at 6 months in clinical care. Men and women reported similar scores in physical well-being, satisfaction with health care, and relationship with partner from the period prior to care, at enrollment, and at 6 months. Women scored significantly lower than men in psychosocial well-being from the period prior to care, at enrollment, and at 6 months (p < 0.05); women reported significantly higher levels of partner satisfaction at 6 months (p < 0.05). In light of the increasing feminization of the HIV epidemic in India, greater emphasis should be placed on examining the long-term experiences of Indian women living with HIV/AIDS, particularly their psychosocial well-being.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".