‘He said, she said’: assessing dyadic agreement of reported sexual behaviour and decision-making among an HIV sero-discordant couples cohort in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intimate nature of sexuality makes it challenging to accurately measure sexual behaviour. To assess response reliability, we examined agreement between couples in heterosexual HIV sero-discordant partnership on survey questions regarding condom use and sexual decision-making. METHODS: Data for this analysis come from baseline data from a cohort study of HIV sero-discordant couples in Jinja, Uganda. We examined the degree of agreement between male and female partners on standard measures of sexual behaviour using the kappa (κ) statistic and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Among 409 couples, the median age for the male partner was 41 [interquartile range (IQR) 35-48] years and the female partner was 35 (IQR 30-40) years. Among 58.2% of the couples, the male was the HIV-positive partner. Questions with high or substantial couple agreement included condom use at last sex (κ=0.635, 95% CI 0.551-0.718) and frequency of condom use (κ=0.625, 95% CI 0.551-0.698). Questions with low or fair couple agreement included decision-making regarding condom use (κ=0.385, 95% CI 0.319-0.451), wanting more biological children (κ=0.375, 95% CI 0.301-0.449) and deciding when to have sex (κ=0.236, 95% CI 0.167-0.306). CONCLUSIONS: Survey questions assessing condom use had the highest level of couple agreement and questions regarding sexual decision-making and fertility desire had low couple agreement. Questions with high agreement have increased reliability and reduced measurement bias; however, questions with low agreement between couples identify important areas for further investigation, particularly perceived relationship control and gender differences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".