Utilization of social media and web forums by HIV patients - A cross-sectional study on adherence and reported anxiety level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high stigma surrounding the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), people living with HIV (PLWH) often reach out peers over the Internet for emotional and social support. The purpose of this study was to assess the characteristics of PLWH who use HIV internet forums. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey investigating demographic characteristics of PLWH, level of satisfaction of the HIV Internet forums, time living with HIV, forum users' anxiety levels, self-reported adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART), and reasons for missing pills (n = 222). Logistic regression models were constructed to compare the use of general HIV forums with social networking sites, general HIV forums with group emails, and social networking sites with group emails. Two hundred and twenty-two patients responded to the survey. Social networking sites were used by recently diagnosed PLWH who were on antiretroviral treatment (ART) > 1 year. Young patients (≤ 40 years) and those diagnosed < 1 year before, tended to use social networking sites, while older patients (> 40 years), those diagnosed > 5 years, and from low- and middle-income countries, were more likely to use emailing lists. There was no significant difference between PLWH's adherence to treatment and anxiety levels and the usage of different Internet forums. PLWH's Internet resource choice varied depending on the availability of Internet and illness duration. Different segments of the population could be reached via social networking sites versus group emails to provide HIV information.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".