Patient choice improves self-efficacy and intention to complete tuberculosis preventive therapy in a routine HIV program setting in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 12-dose weekly regimen of rifapentine plus isoniazid (3HP) is recommended for the prevention of active tuberculosis (TB); however, it is unclear whether 3HP should be provided by directly observed therapy (DOT) or self-administered therapy (SAT). In addition, the introduction of patient informed choice between delivery modalities may have a positive impact on factors leading to treatment completion. The authors randomized 252 participants with HIV to a hypothetical scenario of providing preventive therapy by either DOT or an informed choice between DOT and SAT. Out of 104 participants who were randomized to a choice between DOT and SAT, 103 chose therapy by SAT. Participants rated their level of confidence and intention to complete therapy. Compared to those assigned to the DOT scenario, patients assigned to the choice scenario expressed greater confidence and intention to complete preventive therapy. Convenience and travel required to complete 3HP therapy were important factors in deciding between delivery modalities. Those assigned to DOT identified more barriers to completing therapy than those given a choice. Empowering patients to make informed decisions about how they receive TB preventive therapy may improve completion rates.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".