High Incidence of Intended Partner Pregnancy Among Men Living With HIV in Rural Uganda: Implications for Safer Conception Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many men with HIV express fertility intentions and nearly half have HIV-uninfected sexual partners. We measured partner pregnancy among a cohort of men accessing antiretroviral therapy in Uganda. METHODS: Self-reported partner pregnancy incidence and bloodwork (CD4, HIV-RNA) were collected quarterly. Interviewer-administered questionnaires assessed men's sexual and reproductive health annually and repeated at time of reported pregnancy (2011-2015). We measured partner pregnancy incidence overall, by pregnancy intention and by reported partner HIV serostatus. We assessed viral suppression (≤400 copies/mL) during the periconception period. Cox proportional hazard regression with repeated events identified predictors of partner pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 189 men, the baseline median age was 39.9 years (interquartile range: 34.7-47.0), years on antiretroviral therapy was 3.9 (interquartile range: 0.0-5.1), and 51% were virally suppressed. Over 530.2 person-years of follow-up, 63 men reported 85 partner pregnancies (incidence = 16.0/100 person-years); 45% with HIV-serodifferent partners. By 3 years of follow-up, 30% of men reported a partner pregnancy, with no difference by partner HIV serostatus (P = 0.75). Sixty-nine percent of pregnancies were intended, 18% wanted but mistimed, and 8% unwanted. Seventy-eight percent of men were virally suppressed before pregnancy report. Men who were younger [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.94/yr; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89 to 0.99], had incomplete primary education (aHR: 2.95; 95% CI: 1.36 to 6.40), and reported fertility desires (aHR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.04 to 4.85) had higher probability of partner pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: A high incidence of intended partner pregnancy highlights the need to address men's reproductive goals within HIV care. Nearly half of pregnancy partners were at-risk for HIV, and one-quarter of men were not virally suppressed during periconception. Safer conception care provides opportunity to support men's health and reproductive goals, while preventing HIV transmission to women and infants.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".