Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study of HIV and issues of reproduction is women-focused. HIV-positive men are overlooked and understudied. This study examined views on reproduction of heterosexual HIV-positive men. METHODS: Systematic questionnaire data were gathered from HIV-positive men (n=32) attending an HIV clinic in London. RESULTS: Heterosexual men were rarely given medical advice on reproduction (only 9.4%). Few felt fully informed (21.9%), while many felt uninformed (46.9%) or needed more information (28.1%). Over half would value fertility/fathering consultations, up-to-date information and quick referral to fertility clinics. Nearly half (43.8%) had considered having children and 37.5% had had a child prior to HIV diagnosis. HIV status affected views on fathering, and the advent of new treatments changed views in over half of the men. Almost half (41%) believed they would experience discrimination if they conceived a baby and a quarter would withhold their HIV status when attending antenatal clinics. The majority (81%) believed that a child gave meaning to life and something to live for - only 3.1% felt a child would be a burden. Most men overestimated potential vertical transmission and would value time to discuss fathering and fatherhood. CONCLUSIONS: There are gaps in provision. The majority of men felt that children gave meaning to life and a reason to live. Reproduction issues are not raised with HIV-positive men who are uninformed and unclear where to turn for information. Fatherhood should not be shunned as an issue for all HIV-positive men.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".