Quality of Life Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment for HIV/AIDS Patients in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and its related factors in HIV/AIDS patients taking antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Vietnam. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 1016 patients (36.2% women, mean age = 35.4) in three epicenters of Vietnam, including Hanoi, Hai Phong, and Ho Chi Minh City. HRQOL was assessed using the Vietnamese version of the WHOQOL-HIV BREF. Factor analysis classified measure items into six HRQOL dimensions, namely Physical, Morbidity, Social, Spirituality, Performance, and Environment. Tobit censored regression models were applied to determine associations of patient's characteristics and HRQOL domain scores. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability of the six domains ranged from 0.69 to 0.89. The WHOQOL-HIV BREF had a good discriminative validity with patient's disease stages, CD4 cell counts, and duration of ART. In a band score of (4, 20), six domains were moderate; "Environment" had the highest score (13.8±2.8), and "Social" had the lowest score (11.2±3.3). Worse HRQOL were observed in patients at provincial and district clinics. Those patients who were male, had higher educational attainment, and are employed, reported better HRQOL. In reduced regression models, poorer HRQOL was found in patients who had advanced HIV infection and had CD4 cell count <200 cells/mL. Patients reported significantly poorer Physical and Social in the 1(st) year ART, but moderately better Performance, Morbidity, Spirituality, and Environment from the 2(nd) year ART, compared to those not-yet-on ART. CONCLUSION: Strengthening the quality of ART services at the provincial and district levels, gender-specific impact mitigation, and early treatment supports are recommended for further expansion of ART services in Vietnam. Regular assessments of HRQOL may provide important indicators for monitoring and evaluating HIV/AIDS services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".