Intimate Partner Violence and Adherence to HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in African Women in HIV Serodiscordant Relationships: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with higher HIV incidence, reduced condom use, and poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy and other medications. IPV may also affect adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). METHODS: We analyzed data from 1785 HIV-uninfected women enrolled in a clinical trial of PrEP among African HIV serodiscordant couples. Experience of verbal, physical, or economic IPV was assessed at monthly visits by face-to-face interviews. Low PrEP adherence was defined as clinic-based pill count coverage <80% or plasma tenofovir levels <40 ng/mL. The association between IPV and low adherence was analyzed using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for potential confounders. In-depth interview transcripts were examined to explain how IPV could impact adherence. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of women reported IPV during a median of 34.8 months of follow-up (interquartile range 27.0-35.0). Overall, 7% of visits had pill count coverage <80%, and 32% had plasma tenofovir <40 ng/mL. Women reporting IPV in the past 3 months had increased risk of low adherence by pill count (adjusted risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 1.89) and by plasma tenofovir (adjusted risk ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.06 to 2.15). Verbal, economic, and physical IPV were all associated with low adherence. However, the impact of IPV diminished and was not statistically significant 3 months after the reported exposure. In qualitative interviews, women identified several ways in which IPV affected adherence, including stress and forgetting, leaving home without pills, and partners throwing pills away. CONCLUSIONS: Women who reported recent IPV in the Partners PrEP Study were at increased risk of low PrEP adherence. Strategies to mitigate PrEP nonadherence in the context of IPV should be evaluated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".