Discussing reproductive goals with healthcare providers among women living with HIV in Canada: the role of provider gender and patient comfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiretroviral therapy effectively prevents sexual and vertical transmission of HIV. Yet, some women living with HIV report having unmet needs for reproductive health care. This study measured the prevalence of women discussing reproductive goals with any current healthcare provider and assessed the effect of the current HIV care provider's gender on such discussions and whether comfort was a mediator. We analysed baseline and 18-month survey data from 533 women living with HIV enrolled in the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS) (2013-2017), a community-based participatory study, restricting the analysis to participants aged 16-45 years. We used causal mediation analysis to estimate direct and indirect effects of the gender of one's HIV care provider on reproductive discussions, incorporating mediating and interaction effects of women having any provider with whom they felt comfortable discussing reproductive goals. Between the baseline and 18-month follow-up surveys, 34.3% (183/533) of women discussed their reproductive goals with a healthcare provider. Having a woman HIV care provider was associated with a 1.18 excess relative risk (ERR) of discussion (95%CI: 0.15, 2.20). The mediating effect of comfort was primarily explained by the fact that those participants with women providers felt more comfortable discussing their reproductive goals compared to participants with men providers, accounting for 66% (95%CI: 32%, 99%) of the total effect. Findings support that HIV provider gender affects women's comfort and whether they discuss reproductive goals, which must be acknowledged and addressed in care delivery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".