Perceived acceptability of progesterone to prevent preterm births and low birth weight among HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected Zambian pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intramuscular and vaginal progesterone are recommended for prevention of preterm labor (PTL) in women with risk factors. Studies are emerging to indicate that HIV-infected women on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) are at risk of PTL and low birth weight (LBW), and may benefit from supplemental progesterone. This study aims to determine the perceived acceptability of various modes of progesterone supplementation to prevent PTL and LBW in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women. METHODS: HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women were recruited in Lusaka, Zambia. The participants completed a questionnaire to assess their willingness to take oral, vaginal, or intramuscular progesterone supplementation for preventing PTL and LBW, preferred modes of supplementation, and concern for PTL and LBW. RESULTS: The study questionnaire was completed by 147 participants. Of the participants, 98.6% would consider using a medication to help prevent PTL and LBW, of whom 97.9% would consider using an oral form of progesterone. In addition, 83.3% and 84.0% of women would consider intramuscular and vaginal (gel or tablet) administration of progesterone respectively. Between intramuscular and vaginal modes of progesterone, 60.5% of participants (n=147) preferred intramuscular progesterone, while 39.5% preferred vaginal progesterone. There was no difference in preference between HIV-infected (n=70) and HIV-uninfected (n=77) women. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Pregnant Zambian women demonstrated a high degree of acceptance for all modes of progesterone supplementation for the prevention of PTL and LBW. Women preferred intramuscular over vaginal supplementation. Progesterone supplementation can be considered a feasible intervention for preventing PTL and LBW in both HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected pregnant Zambian 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".