Intimate Partner Violence and the HIV Care and Treatment Cascade Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women in DREAMS, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) may affect the HIV-treatment cascade. SETTING: Four high HIV-prevalence DREAMS health districts in South Africa. METHODS: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected March 2017-June 2018, using random household sample of young (12-24 years) girls and women. Face-to-face interviews assessed IPV and HIV-status knowledge, and finger-prick blood draws assessed ART (antiretroviral therapy) uptake and viral suppression. We used logistic regression to estimate crude and adjusted effects of IPV on HIV knowledge, ART uptake, and viral suppression. RESULTS: Of 18,230 adolescent girls and young women, 8413 (46%) reported ever having had sex, of whom 1118 (13%) were HIV positive. The 90:90:90 benchmarks were 61% knew their status, 86% had ART present in their blood sample, and 91% were virally suppressed. Among the entire sample of young women living with HIV, 65.6% were virally suppressed. Past year IPV was reported by 15%. In adjusted models, IPV trended toward increasing the odds that a young woman was aware she was living with HIV [adjusted odds ratios (aOR) = 1.40, 2.00-9.98, P = 0.067]. There was no association between IPV and reduced treatment use (aOR = 0.73, 0.41-1.29). IPV was independently associated with reduced viral suppression (aOR = 0.30, 0.13-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the role of IPV in undermining the treatment cascade for adolescent and young women is a critical issue for HIV programming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".