Family model of HIV care and treatment: a retrospective study in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nyanza Province, Kenya, had the highest HIV prevalence in the country at 14.9% in 2007, more than twice the national HIV prevalence of 7.1%. Only 16% of HIV-infected adults in the country accurately knew their HIV status. Targeted strategies to reach and test individuals are urgently needed to curb the HIV epidemic. The family unit is one important portal. METHODS: A family model of care was designed to build on the strengths of Kenyan families. Providers use a family information table (FIT) to guide index patients through the steps of identifying family members at HIV risk, address disclosure, facilitate family testing, and work to enrol HIV-positive members and to prevent new infections. Comprehensive family-centred clinical services are built around these steps. To assess the approach, a retrospective study of patients receiving HIV care between September 2007 and September 2009 at Lumumba Health Centre in Kisumu was conducted. A random sample of FITs was examined to assess family reach. RESULTS: Through the family model of care, for each index patient, approximately 2.5 family members at risk were identified and 1.6 family members were tested. The approach was instrumental in reaching children; 61% of family members identified and tested were children. The approach also led to identifying and enrolling a high proportion of HIV- positive partners among those tested: 71% and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The family model of care is a feasible approach to broaden HIV case detection and service reach. The approach can be adapted for the local context and should continue to utilize index patient linkages, FIT adaption, and innovative methods to package services for families in a manner that builds on family support and enhances patient care and prevention efforts. Further efforts are needed to increase family member engagement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".