Patient Perspectives on Leaving, Disengaging, and Returning to HIV Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuity of care is the cornerstone of all modern HIV disease management guidelines. Interruptions in care due to disengagement or moving between HIV care centers are common occurrences often contributing to poorer health. In order to understand why patients disengage from HIV care we first document movement into and out of our regional population since 2001 and then interview returning patients about their underlying motivations leaving or transferring care. Overall, 47% of all patients either disengaged (i.e., lost-to-follow-up) or moved away from local HIV care; 16% returned. Motivations and underlying reasons stated by patients who moved were different than for patients who disengaged from care. "Feeling well' and 'loss of interest' most often led to dropping out of care, whereas as employment or family issues predicated more formal moves. Reengaging to HIV care was commonly related to health concerns. Understanding patient's motivations underlying discontinuation of care will help provide insight into the reasons that patients themselves find important thus improving outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".