Effect of Couples Counselling on Reported HIV Risk Behaviour among HIV Serodiscordant Couples by ART Use, HIV Status and Gender in Rural Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined several measures of self-reported HIV risk behaviour in mutually disclosed sero-discordant couples over time to see if a couples counselling intervention was associated with changes in these behaviors. METHODS: We analysed data from a prospective cohort study of HIV sero-discordant couples in Jinja, Uganda collected between June 2009 and December 2011. Participants received couples counselling, at 3-monthly intervals. We examined trends in reported condom-use, number of concurrent sexual partners, knowledge of HIV serostatus of concurrent partners and condom use of concurrent partners using Generalized Estimating Equation models, comparing responses at study enrollment with responses at six, 12 18 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 586 couples were enrolled and the female member was HIV positive in 255 (44%) of them. The median age for female participants was 35 years and 42 years for men. Reported condom use at last sex with spouse increased over time (p<0.001) with the largest increases found among couples where the positive participant never received ART during the study(an increase from 68.8% at enrollment to 97.1% at 24 months). Male participants reported reductions in the number of concurrent sexual partners (p<0.001), increase in the knowledge of the HIV serostatus of these partners (p = 0.001) and a trend towards improved condom-use among non-primary partners (p = 0.070). Reported reduced risky behaviors did not wane over the study period. CONCLUSION: Couples counselling resulted in increased condom use among all participants and among men the intervention resulted in reductions in risk behaviour with concurrent sexual partners. Routine counselling for serodiscordant couples should be integrated in routine ART care programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".