‘What will it take’: addressing alcohol use among people living with HIV in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that hazardous and harmful alcohol use has been identified as a significant barrier to adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa, alcohol reduction interventions delivered within HIV treatment services are being investigated. Prior to designing and implementing an alcohol-focused screening and brief intervention (SBI), we explored patients’ perceptions of alcohol as a barrier to HIV treatment, the acceptability of providing SBIs for alcohol use within the context of HIV services and identifying potential barriers to patient uptake of this SBI. Four focus groups were conducted with 23 participants recruited from three HIV treatment sites in Tshwane, South Africa. Specific themes that emerged included: (1) barriers to ART adherence, (2) available services to address problematic alcohol use and (3) barriers and facilitators to delivering a brief intervention to address alcohol use within HIV care. Although all participants in the present study unanimously agreed that there was a great need for SBIs to address alcohol use among people living with HIV and AIDS, our study identified several areas that should be considered prior to implementing such a programme.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".