Understanding the Importance of Fatherhood among Men Living with HIV in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While pregnancy and motherhood have become paramount clinical issues for women living with HIV, parenting has received less attention among men living with HIV (MLWH). We conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study assessing fertility desires and intentions of MLWH using a 5-point Likert scale based on the question: "Being a father is important to me". Logistic regression models were fit to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for significant correlates. Of the 276 respondents, 118 were heterosexual, 158 were gay, bisexual, 2-spirit, or queer (GBTQ), 55% had never parented before, and 65% wanted to parent. 191 (69%) respondents agreed that fatherhood was important to them. In unadjusted analyses, heterosexuality (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.03), African/Caribbean/Black ethnicity (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.19), African/Caribbean birthplace (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.05), and history of parenting (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.39) were significantly (p < 0.05) associated with importance of fatherhood. However, none of these variables were significant in adjusted analyses. From the unadjusted model, factors such as sexual orientation, ethnicity, and current parenthood may influence how MLWH value fatherhood, suggesting HIV and fatherhood is complex and must be explored further.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".