An Estimation of Mortality Risks among People Living with HIV in Karnataka State, India: Learnings from an Intensive HIV/AIDS Care and Support Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Indian context, limited attempts have been made to estimate the mortality risks among people living with HIV (PLHIV). We estimated the rates of mortality among PLHIV covered under an integrated HIV-prevention cum care and support programme implemented in Karnataka state, India, and attempted to identify the key programme components associated with the higher likelihood of their survival. METHODS: Retrospective programme data of 55,801 PLHIV registered with the Samastha programme implemented in Karnataka state during 2006-11 was used. Kaplan-Meier survival methods were used to estimate the ten years expected survival probabilities and Cox-proportional hazard model was used to examine the factors associated with risk of mortality among PLHIV. We also calculated mortality rates (per 1000 person-year) across selected demographic and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Of the total PLHIV registered with the programme, about nine percent died within the 5-years of programme period with an overall death rate of 38 per 1000 person-years. The mortality rate was higher among males, aged 18 and above, among illiterates, and those residing in rural areas. While the presence of co-infections such as Tuberculosis leads to higher mortality rate, adherence to ART was significantly associated with reduction in overall death rate. Cox proportional hazard model revealed that increase in CD4 cell counts and exposure to intensive care and support programme for at least two years can bring significant reduction in risk of death among PLHIV [(hazard ratio: 0.234; CI: 0.211-0.260) & (hazard ratio: 0.062; CI: 0.054-0.071), respectively] even after adjusting the effect of other socio-demographic, economic and health related confounders. CONCLUSION: Study confirms that while residing in rural areas and presence of co-infection significantly increases the mortality risk among PLHIV, adherence to ART and improvement in CD4 counts led to significant reduction in their mortality risk. Longer exposure to the intervention contributed significantly to reduce mortality among PLHIV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".