A pilot study of the feasibility of a vaginal washing cessation intervention among Kenyan female sex workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravaginal practices including vaginal washing have been associated with HIV-1 acquisition. This association may be mediated by mucosal disruption, changes in vaginal flora or genital tract inflammatory responses. Reducing vaginal washing could lower women's risk of HIV-1 acquisition. METHODS: 23 HIV-1 seronegative women who reported current vaginal washing were recruited from a prospective cohort study of high-risk women in Mombasa, Kenya. A theoretical framework including information-motivation-behavioural skills and harm reduction was implemented to encourage participants to reduce or eliminate vaginal washing. At baseline and after 1 month, we evaluated vaginal epithelial lesions by colposcopy, vaginal microbiota by Nugent's criteria and vaginal cytokine milieu using ELISA on cervicovaginal lavage specimens. RESULTS: The most commonly reported vaginal washing substance was soap with water (N=14, 60.9%). The median frequency of vaginal washing was 7 (IQR 7-14) times per week. After 1 month, all participants reported cessation of vaginal washing (p=0.01). The probability of detecting cervicovaginal epithelial lesions was lower (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.16; p=0.10) and the likelihood of detecting Lactobacillus by culture was higher (OR 3.71, 95% CI 0.73 to 18.76, p=0.11) compared with baseline, although these results were not statistically significant. There was no change in the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis. Most cytokine levels were reduced, but these changes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A theory-based intervention appeared to have a positive effect in reducing vaginal washing over 1 month. Larger studies with longer follow-up are important to further characterise the effects of vaginal washing cessation on biological markers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".