Women, incarceration and HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on gendered implications of incarceration for HIV outcomes and engagement in care for women living with HIV (WLWH). DESIGN: We systematically searched seven bibliographic databases, for peer-reviewed English-language studies, published between 2007 and 2017 reporting on incarceration, women (transgender inclusive) and HIV. METHODS: Articles were included for evaluation if they reported outcomes for at least one of three measures of interest: viral load, antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence or engagement in care among WLWH along incarceration trajectories. RESULTS: Out of 1119 studies, 24 (2%) met the inclusion criteria. Of these 24 studies, the majority (n = 23) were conducted in the USA, 19 included samples of women and men and seven studies were transgender inclusive. Our review did not reveal clear sex differences in HIV outcomes during periods of incarceration; however, studies reporting postincarceration outcomes demonstrated significant sex disparities in all three outcomes of interest. Following incarceration, women were less likely to be virally suppressed, less likely to achieve optimal ART adherence and less likely to be engaged in care. CONCLUSION: Despite growing numbers of incarcerated WLWH globally, there is a substantial gap in research examining the impact of incarceration on HIV outcomes for WLWH. Significant sex disparities in HIV outcomes and engagement in care exist along incarceration trajectories for WLWH, especially postincarceration. For improved health outcomes, research is needed to examine the experiences of WLWH throughout incarceration trajectories to develop interventions tailored to the specific needs of WLWH both during and following incarceration.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".