Uptake of HIV testing among 15–19-year-old adolescents in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent HIV testing rates remain low with many unaware of their status. We explored factors associated with HIV testing uptake among adolescents aged 15-19 years using data from the Zambian Demographic Health Survey 2013-2014. The sample consisted of 7030 adolescents of which 42% reported ever testing for HIV. We found that as the age of a respondent increased so did their odds of testing (aOR = 1.26; 1.21-1.32); females had higher odds of testing than males (aOR = 1.719; 1.53-1.92); those with secondary or higher education (aOR = 3.64; 2.23-5.96) and those with primary education (aOR=1.97; 1.21-3.19) had higher odds of testing than those with no education; those who were formerly married or living with a partner (aOR = 4.99; 2.32-10.75) and those who were currently married or living with a partner (aOR = 4.76; 3.65-6.21) had higher odds of testing than those who were never married or lived with a partner; as the age at first sexual intercourse increased so did the odds of testing (aOR = 1.07; 1.06-1.08); and as HIV knowledge increased so did the odds of testing (aOR = 1.13; 1.06-1.19). The data points to population level social determinants that may be targeted to increase testing among adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".