O07.6 Age Related Differences in Contraceptive Prevalence and Preference Among Harder-To-Reach Women on Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Living with HIV in British Columbia (BC), Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Contraceptive use among HIV-positive women prevents unwanted pregnancy and reduces STI and HIV transmission. Recent studies link the use of hormonal contraceptive methods to increased risk of HIV transmission, consequently WHO guidelines recommend dual protection for HIV-positive women. Little is known about the uptake of dual contraceptive methods among women living with HIV. This study sought to measure differences in contraceptive prevalence and preference among HIV-positive women of different ages. Methods The Longitudinal Investigation into Supportive and Ancillary health services (LISA) cohort is a prospective study of harder-to-reach HIV-positive individuals accessing ART in BC. Interviewer-administered surveys collected information on socio-demographic, behavioural and structural factors while clinical variables were linked through the Drug Treatment Program at BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. This analysis included non-pregnant women aged 18–49 years. The outcome variable of interest was self-reported current contraceptive use. Results Of the 166 women in this analysis, the median age was 38 years (IQR 33–43. In the six months before interview, 57% demonstrated viral suppression (VL < 50 copies) and median CD4 count was 280 (IQR 170–490). Contraceptive use was reported by 109 women (66%). Of the 104 women reporting vaginal sexual intercourse ≤ 6 months before interview, contraceptive methods included: barrier methods (condoms) (30%); dual methods (barrier method plus hormonal/permanent method) (27%); no method (24%), permanent methods (tubal ligation/hysterectomy) (10%); and hormonal methods (nuvaring/intrauterine device/oral/injectable) (9%). A significant difference was observed in contraceptive preference between sexually active women aged ≤ 35 years (n = 42) and > 35 years (n = 62), with older women choosing permanent or dual methods and younger women selecting hormonal, barrier or no contraceptive method (p = < 0.001). Conclusion Younger women demonstrate poor uptake of dual contraceptives, electing to use individual hormonal or barrier methods, or engage in unprotected intercourse. This demographic are at most risk of HIV transmission, potentially exacerbated by hormonal contraceptives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".