Knowledge among patients with Hepatitis C initiating on direct-acting antiviral treatment in rural Rwanda: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Curative direct-acting antiviral treatment (DAA) has made it plausible to implement hepatitis C elimination interventions. However, poor hepatitis C knowledge among patients could impede the effectiveness of screening and treatment programs.Objective We assessed knowledge on hepatitis C among rural Rwandans initiating DAA treatment for hepatitis C in a prospective cohort.Methods We administered 15 true-false statements before treatment initiation and during one follow-up visit occurring either 1 or 2 months after treatment initiation. We assessed the average number of correct responses per patient, the proportion of correct responses to individual statements, pre-treatment predictors of knowledge, and whether post-initiation knowledge was associated with time since treatment initiation, quality of care, or adherence.Results Among 333 patients who answered knowledge questions before treatment initiation, 325 (97.6%) were re-assessed at a post-initiation visit. Pre-initiation, 72.1% knew hepatitis C was curable, 61.9% knew that hepatitis C could cause liver damage or cancer, and 42.3% knew that people with hepatitis C could look and feel fine. The average number of correct responses was 8.1 out of 15 (95% CI: 7.8–8.5), but was significantly lower among those with low educational attainment or with low literacy. Post-initiation, correct responses increased by an average of 2.0 statements (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4, p-value <0.001). Many patients still mistakenly believed that hepatitis C could be transmitted through kissing (66.5%), eating utensils (44.1%), handshakes (34.8%), and hugs (34.8%). Post-initiation knowledge is inversely associated with self-reported quality of care and unassociated with self-reported adherence.Conclusion Although knowledge improved over time, key gaps persisted among patients. Accessible public education campaigns targeted to low-literacy populations emphasizing that hepatitis C can be asymptomatic, has severe consequences, and is curable could promote participation in mass screening campaigns and linkage to care. Visual tools could facilitate clinician-provided patient education.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".