Reproductive Decision-Making and Periconception Practices Among HIV-Positive Men and Women Attending HIV Services in Durban, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding reproductive decisions and periconception behavior among HIV-discordant couples is important for designing risk reduction interventions for couples who choose to conceive. In-depth interviews were conducted to explore reproductive decision-making and periconception practices among HIV-positive women with recent pregnancy (n = 30), and HIV-positive men (n = 20), all reporting partners of negative or unknown HIV-status, and attending HIV services in Durban, South Africa. Transcripts were coded for categories and emergent themes. Participants expressed strong reasons for having children, but rarely knew how to reduce periconception HIV transmission. Pregnancy planning occurred on a spectrum ranging from explicitly intended to explicitly unintended, with many falling in between the two extremes. Male fertility desire and misunderstanding serodiscordance contributed to HIV risk behavior. Participants expressed openness to healthcare worker advice for safer conception and modified risk behavior post-conception, suggesting the feasibility of safer conception interventions which may target both men and women and include serodiscordance counseling and promotion of contraception.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".