MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955697799 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2019.1633379

Viral suppression among persons living with HIV in Trinidad & Tobago: Implications for targeted prevention programmes

2019· article· en· W2955697799 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert J. Edwards, Elena Cyrus, Chintan Bhatt, Nyla Lyons, Leon-Omari Lavia, Gregory Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research FoundationNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsViral loadMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Stigma (botany)Logistic regressionOdds ratioDemographySocial stigmaOddsGerontologyImmunologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Trinidad and Tobago, despite persons living with HIV (PLHIV) having access to subsidised treatment and care, only 47% PLHIV attain viral suppression. The study assessed the role of individual-level factors on viral suppression among PLHIV in Trinidad and Tobago. Data from 9,629 PLHIV who attended an HIV clinic between 2016 and 2018 were analysed. Cases were aged ≥18 who met the CDC HIV case definition. Viral suppression defined as a viral load of <200 copies/ml at last assessment. The chi-square test of association determined statistically significant relationships between individual factors and viral suppression. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for viral suppression. PLHIV who were males (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.87), men who have sex with men (MSM) (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-0.99), single/unmarried (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.87), aged 18-24 years (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.89), aged 25-49 years (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94) were less likely to achieve viral suppression. These study findings demonstrate that retention/adherence programmes must urgently identify and target vulnerable PLHIV populations in Trinidad and Tobago to improve viral suppression. Further research examining community and societal factors, such as stigma and discrimination, is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207