Prevalence, Patterns and Cognitive Barriers to HIV Disclosure Intention Among Treatment-Seeking People Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, the patterns, prevalence and cognitive barriers to Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus and Acquired-Immune-Deficiency-Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) disclosure among individuals diagnosed with HIV have continually been a source of concern, especially in developing countries. This been widely linked to most persistent problems thwarting the effort of authorities saddled with responsibilities of curbing the menace of HIV/AIDS in Africa at large. The unabated issues have been a primary global health concern. Methods: The study was carried out in the Heart to Heart (H2H) unit of Hematology Department of the Ondo State Teaching Hospital, Akure, Ondo State. The study incorporated a blend of a quantitative method (to explore the prevalence of disclosure and its socio-demographic prevalence) and qualitative method (to explore cognitive barriers to self-disclosure of HIV positive status. The quantitative data was gathered from three hundred and ninety (n=390) PLWHA and the qualitative data was gathered from nineteen (n=19) PLHIV. Results: The prevalence of low-disclosure intention among treatment-seeking people living with HIV/AIDS was pegged at 64.6%. Approximately 70% of the males and 60% of the females are not likely to disclose their HIV positive status. 65% of the PLHIV from monogamy family structure are not likely to disclose their HIV positive status. Anticipated stigmatization, disclosure self-efficacy, mood problems, health locus of control were identified as the major cognitive barriers to disclosure of HIV positive status. Conclusion: The study further concludes that anticipated stigmatization, disclosure efficacy, manifested mood problems (anxiety and depressive symptoms), and health locus of control were the implicated cognitive barriers to disclosure among a hospital-based PLHIV. The outcome was similarly Furthermore, the study revealed that the target of disclosure was major to secondary circle i.e. parents and siblings and not towards the primary circle, such as; spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend, children. Implications and recommendations were further discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".