Development of a National Campaign Addressing South African Men's Fears About HIV Counseling and Testing and Antiretroviral Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: South African men are less likely to get tested for HIV than women and are more likely to commence antiretroviral treatment (ART) at later stages of disease, default on treatment, and to die from AIDS compared with women. The purpose of this study was to conduct formative research into the ideational and behavioral factors that enable or create obstacles to mens' uptake of HIV counseling and testing (HCT) and ART. The study consulted men with a goal of developing a communication campaign aimed at improving the uptake of HIV testing and ART initiation among men. METHODS: Eleven focus groups and 9 in-depth interviews were conducted with 97 male participants in 6 priority districts in 4 South African provinces in rural, peri-urban, and urban localities. RESULTS: Fears of compromised masculine pride and reputation, potential community rejection, and fear of loss of emotional control ("the stress of knowing") dominated men's rationales for avoiding HIV testing and treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: A communication campaign was developed based on the findings. Creative treatments aimed at redefining a 'strong' man as someone who faces his fears and knows his HIV status. The resultant campaign concept was: "positive or negative-you are still the same person."
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".