Factors associated with sterilization among HIV-positive US women in an urban outpatient clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional study sought to determine factors associated with sterilization among HIV-positive US women. HIV-positive women aged 18-45 completed an Audio Computer Assisted Self Interview (ACASI) questionnaire. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with sterilization. The median age of the 187 participants was 37, the majority had at least a high school education, and 88% were African American. Nearly a quarter (22%) of women had undergone sterilization at an average age of 25; of these women, 71% cited their HIV-positive status as an important factor in deciding to have a tubal ligation, 22% expressed desire for future children, 32% reported sterilization regret, and 20% reported feeling pressure to undergo sterilization. In multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with sterilization included non-African American race, no desire for future pregnancy, having heard of any birth control methods making it harder to get pregnant in the future, belief that women should take a break from hormonal methods every few years, and having had a child born with HIV. While almost a quarter of this HIV-positive group was sterilized, many during the height of the early HIV epidemic, a large proportion of sterilized women expressed sterilization regret. Counseling messages for sterilized HIV-positive women should be sensitive to the fact that women may have regret regarding a decision that, in some cases, may historically have been part of provider recommendations to prevent vertical transmission of HIV. Improved knowledge about contraceptive options such as the IUD and implant is needed among HIV-positive women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".