Self-Reported Preconception Care of HIV-Positive Women of Reproductive Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion and correlates of self-reported pregnancy planning discussions (that is preconception counseling) that HIV-positive women reported to their family physicians (FPs), HIV specialists, and obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/Gyns). METHODS: In a cross-sectional substudy, HIV-positive women of reproductive potential were asked whether their care providers discussed pregnancy planning. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for the correlates of preconception counseling. RESULTS: A total of 431 eligible participants (median age 38, interquartile range = 32-43) reported having discussion with a physician (92% FP, 96% HIV specialists, and 45% OB/Gyns). In all, 34%, 41%, and 38% had their pregnancy planning discussion with FP, HIV specialist, and Ob/Gyns, respectively; 51% overall. In the multivariable model, significant correlates of preconception counseling were age (P = .02), marital status (P < .01), number of years living in Canada (P < .001), and age of youngest child (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Preconception care in our cohort was suboptimal. We recommend that counseling on healthy preconception should be part of routine HIV care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".