Brief Report: Undertreated Midlife Symptoms for Women Living With HIV Linked to Lack of Menopause Discussions With Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, women living with HIV are entering menopause (ie, cessation of menses for ≥1 year) and experiencing midlife symptoms. Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is first-line therapy for bothersome hot flashes and early menopause (ie, before age 45 years); however, its use in women living with HIV is poorly described. We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of MHT uptake and barriers to use in this group. SETTING: This study was conducted across 3 Canadian provinces from 2015 to 2017. METHODS: Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women living with HIV (35 years or older) in the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study who answered questions related to MHT use were included. Univariable/multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with MHT use, adjusted for age and contraindications. RESULTS: Among 464 women, 47.8% (222 of 464) had a first-line indication for MHT; however, only 11.8% (55 of 464) reported ever using MHT and 5.6% (26 of 464) were current users. Only 44.8% had ever discussed menopause with their care provider despite almost all women having regular HIV care (97.8%). African/Caribbean/Black women had lower unadjusted odds of MHT treatment compared with White women [odds ratio (OR) 0.42 (0.18-0.89); P = 0.034]. Those who had discussed menopause with their care provider had higher odds of treatment [OR 3.13 (1.74-5.86); P < 0.001]. In adjusted analyses, only women having had a menopause discussion remained significantly associated with MHT use [OR 2.97 (1.62-5.61); P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Women living with HIV are seldom prescribed MHT despite frequent indication. MHT uptake was associated with care provider-led menopause discussions underscoring the need for care provider education on menopause management within HIV care.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".