Costs and benefits of secrecy: the dilemma experienced by adolescents seropositive for HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the experiences of the first generation of adolescents who acquired HIV through vertical transmission when disclosing their diagnosis to friends and romantic partners. The study sample was selected by convenience, with 20 patients (13-20 years old) participating in a qualitative investigation using individual interviews (language: Portuguese; duration: 45 minutes). The participants were followed in specialized clinics for the treatment of pediatric AIDS in São Paulo, Brazil. The results suggest that families who live with HIV tend to keep it a secret, and such behavior is learned and accepted unquestioningly as natural. Respect for privacy and the fear of rejection, coupled with the belief that information about their disease will be spread, are the main beliefs with which participants justify their secrecy. In terms of romantic relationships, adolescents were aware that their HIV status should at some point be shared with current or future sexual partners. However, the decision to reveal an HIV diagnosis in romantic relationships is permeated by anxieties, uncertainties about the right time, and fear of abandonment. In any case, telling the truth requires trust, guarantees of the other's love, and, in some cases, probing romantic partners beforehand to learn their perceptions about the disease. Participants who had experiences disclosing their HIV status shared positive and negative results, including emotional support, acceptance, and understanding, along with ostracism, discrimination, and abandonment by family members. The findings of this paper reinforce the challenges of revealing an HIV diagnosis to third parties. It requires understanding the meaning and importance of the secret for each patient, along with the conflict between the right to confidentiality and the responsibility of treating others exposed to the disease. All these aspects should be discussed extensively with this population and incorporated into clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".