Prevalence and risk factors of HIV infection among people who inject drugs in Cambodia: findings from a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, people who inject drugs (PWID) continue to be among the most vulnerable populations to acquire infection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The most recent national survey found that nearly a quarter of PWID in Cambodia were infected with HIV in 2012. The aim of this study is to estimate the current prevalence of and factors associated with HIV infection among PWID in Cambodia. METHODS: This national integrated biological and behavioral survey was conducted from June to December 2017. Participants were recruited from the capital city and 11 major provinces using the respondent driven sampling method. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using a structured questionnaire, and blood samples were collected for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for HIV infection. All analyses were estimated with sampling weights that corrected for non-response and sample design. RESULTS: A total of 310 PWID participated in the study, and the mean age was 31.8 years (SD = 7.8). The prevalence of HIV was 15.2%. More than half (57.4%) of the HIV-positive participants were co-infected with HCV, and 44.7% were not aware of their HIV status prior to this study. After adjustment for other covariates, HIV infection remained positively associated with being female (AOR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.03-4.04), being in the older age group of ≥35 (AOR = 2.99, 95% CI 1.33-9.22), being widowed, divorced or separated (AOR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.04-6.67), living on the streets (AOR = 2.86, 95% CI 1.24-4.37), and HCV infection (AOR = 3.89, 95% CI 1.86-1.15). The HIV infection remained negatively associated with having higher level of formal education of ≥10 years (AOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.13-0.83) and higher average income of ≥US$200 per month (AOR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.05-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HIV among PWID in Cambodia remains high, but is reducing compared with the 24.8% reported in the 2012 national survey. Findings from this study provide critical information for tailoring interventions based on identified vulnerabilities and risk factors for HIV. Our findings underline the importance of socio-structural factors in HIV epidemiology among PWID in Cambodia, which require mitigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".