Motivators of couple HIV counseling and testing (CHCT) uptake in a rural setting in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Couple HIV Counseling and Testing (CHCT) is one of the key preventive strategies used to reduce the spread of HIV. In Uganda, HIV prevalence among married/living together is 7.2% among women and 7.6% among men. CHCT can help ease disclosure of HIV-positive status, which in turn may help increase opportunities to get social support and reduce new infections. The uptake of CHCT among attendees of health facilities in rural Uganda is as high as 34%. The purpose of this study was to explore the motivators of CHCT uptake in Mukono district, a rural setting in Uganda. METHODS: The study was conducted in two sub-counties in a rural district (Mukono district) about 28 km east of the capital Kampala, using a descriptive and explorative qualitative research design. Specifically, we conducted focus group discussions and key informant interviews with HIV focal persons, village health team (VHT) members, religious leaders and political leaders. We also interviewed persons in couple relationships. Data was analysed using NVivo 8 software. Ethical clearance was received from the Mengo Hospital Research Review Board and from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology. RESULTS: The study was conducted from June 2013 to July 2013 We conducted 4 focus group discussions, 10 key informant interviews and interviewed 53 persons in couple relationships. None of the participants were a couple. The women were 68% (36/53) and 49% (26/53) of them were above 29 years old. The motivators of CHCT uptake were; perceived benefit of HIV testing, sickness of a partner or child in the family and suspicion of infidelity. Other important motivators were men involvement in antenatal care (ANC) attendance and preparation for marriage. CONCLUSION: The motivators for CHCT uptake included the perceived benefit of HIV testing, sickness of a partner or child, preparation for marriage, lack of trust among couples and men involvement in antenatal care. Greater attention to enhancers of CHCT programming is needed in trying to strengthen its uptake.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".