Disclosure of HIV seropositivity to sexual partner and psychosocial factors in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta-analysis 
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : The burden of HIV/AIDS again becomes a public health problem after substantial control of its transmission in Ethiopia. For effective HIV transmission control measures, sero-disclosure to sexual partner is indispensable. Once the infection is established, psychosocial factors would have a great influence on HIV disclosure status to sexual partners which is very important to control viral transmission. This review aimed to estimate the national proportion of HIV disclosure practice to sexual partner and identify associated psychosocial factors. Methods : We searched PubMed, Scopus, African Journals Online, and Google Scholar databases. The Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the quality of studies. To ensure the absence or presence of publication bias, we used a funnel plot and performed Egger’s regression test for the subjective and objective assessment, respectively. Variation across studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The pooled proportion was estimated by using weighted inverse variance random-effects model meta-analysis. We did subgroup and sensitivity analysis to explore the reason for heterogeneity and the impact of outlier finding on the overall estimation, respectively. Trend analysis was also performed to see the presence of time variation. Results : The proportion of HIV sero-disclosure practice to sexual partners was 76.03 % (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 68.78, 83.27). Being on ART (AOR=6.19; 95% CI: 2.92, 9.49), cohabiting with partner (AOR=4.48; 95% CI: 1.24, 7.72), getting counseling (AOR=3.94; 95% CI: 2.08, 5.80), had discussion prior to HIV testing (AOR= 4.40; 95% CI: 2.11, 6.69), awareness of partner’s HIV status (AOR= 6.08; 95%CI: 3.05, 9.10),smooth relationship with partner (AOR=4.44; 95% CI:1.28, 7.61), and being member of anti-HIV association (AOR=3.70; 95% CI: 2.20, 5.20) facilitates HIV status disclosure. Conclusions : In Ethiopia, still more than one-fourth of HIV-infected adults did not disclose their HIV positivity status to sexual partners. Psychosocial factors were the contributing factors of HIV-positive status disclosure. Further work is still needed to increase HIV status disclosure so as to decrease the transmission rate of HIV in Ethiopia.
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".