Regional differences in perceived treatments needs and priorities in relation to antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV in 25 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While geographic differences in HIV burden are well documented, less is known about regional differences in perceived treatment needs. To fill this gap, the 2019 Positive Perspectives study of people living with HIV (PLHIV) was conducted in 25 countries across Northern America, Latin America, the Asian region, Europe (EU/Schengen countries), Russia, Australia, and South Africa (n = 2389). Overall mean duration of HIV was 10.1 (SD = 9.6) years. The perception that HIV had a negative impact on day-to-day life was lowest among participants from South Africa (14.0%[25/179]) and highest among participants from the Asian region (55.2%[127/230]). Most of the regional gap in the perception that HIV had a negative impact on daily life was explained by regional differences in medication-related unmet needs, stigma, demographic factors, and comorbidities. The percentage who felt they understood their treatment was highest among participants from Australia (87.5%[105/120]) and lowest among those from Russia (62.0%[93/150]), the Asian region (62.2%[143/230]), and South Africa (62.6%[112/179]). Among participants from Northern America, Europe, and Latin America, the treatment goals with the largest absolute increase in perceived importance, from time of starting treatment to time of survey among those diagnosed for ≥1 year, were minimizing the long term impact of antiretroviral treatment and keeping the number of medicines in their antiretroviral regimen at a minimum. Tailored approaches to care of PLHIV are needed as different regions have different disease burden and treatment needs. Equitable approaches to HIV care are needed across and within regions to ensure that patients' unmet needs and preferences are addressed to improve their overall wellbeing and health-related quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".