Sexual Assault and HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis at an Urban African Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may be underutilized in sexual assault cases in Kenya. This study evaluated the characteristics of survivors of sexual violence attending the Gender-Based Violence Recovery Center (GBVRC) at the Kenyatta National Hospital and reviewed the uptake, adherence, and outcomes of those initiated on PEP. In a retrospective cohort, data from charts of the assaulted seen at the GBVRC from 2009 to 2012 were abstracted. Data were collected describing sociodemographic characteristics, nature of sexual assault, HIV serostatus, and aspects of the PEP care cascade. Characteristics of participants who received PEP were compared with those who did not receive PEP. We enrolled 385 assaulted persons; 331 (86%) were female; the median age of the assaulted persons was 21 (interquartile range 14-28) years; and 61 (15.8%) were children aged 10 years and younger. Of 379 assaults with descriptions, 330 (85.7%) were vaginal assaults and 40 (10.3%) were penile-anal assaults. Most perpetrators were unknown to the assaulted 220 of 384 (57.3%). All assaulted persons were offered HIV testing and 359 (93%) accepted testing; 346 (96.4%) of 359 assaulted persons tested HIV negative. In total, 207 (53.8%) of 385 sexual assault survivors initiated PEP. Only 70 (34%) completed 28 days of PEP, and only 21 (10.1%) returned for repeat HIV test at 3 months. In conclusion, PEP was only initiated in 54% of sexual assault cases. The care cascade showed that late presentation and poor adherence were the greatest gaps in PEP provision. Earlier presentation for PEP should be promoted among sexual assault in areas of high HIV prevalence.
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 | 0.002 | 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".