76. Effects of the “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (“U=U”) Educational Campaign on Treatment Outcomes and Perceptions among People Living with HIV in North American Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The educational campaign “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (U=U) began in 2016 to improve the well-being of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and recalibrate HIV-related social norms. As medical practice can vary by region, we examined reports from PLHIV in North American countries to identify if the campaign affected healthcare provider (HCP) communication of U=U and if positive health outcomes differed by U=U-informed status or country. Methods Data were collected from the 2019 Positive Perspectives survey of PLHIV in Canada (n=120), Mexico (n=63), and the United States (US; n=400) and stratified by country. Outcomes were self-rated mental and sexual health (“Good”/”Very good”), viral suppression, and sharing of HIV status. Treatment perceptions were also assessed. Results Whether diagnosis occurred before or after the U=U campaign launch did not significantly affect the proportion of PLHIV who reported receipt of U=U from an HCP in any North American country. Whether an individual was informed of U=U varied significantly by sexual orientation (heterosexual, 62.8%; homosexual, 74.9%; other, 87.8%), sex (men, 64.7%; women, 89.8%; other, 100%), and metropolitan vs non-metropolitan residence (metropolitan, 78.2%; non-metropolitan, 65.2%) in the US (P< 0.01 for all) but not in Canada or Mexico. Prevalence of sharing of HIV status with ≥ 1 person besides an HCP varied among PLHIV (Canada, 87%; Mexico, 95%; US, 84%). Prevalence of other positive outcomes varied by country and whether PLHIV had been informed of U=U (Figure). Whether PLHIV were informed of U=U was also correlated with treatment satisfaction and the perception that treatment needs were being met among PLHIV in the US and Canada (P< 0.01 for all), and with the belief that treatment prevents transmission among PLHIV in the US (P=0.01). Figure. Prevalence of positive outcomes among PLHIV in Canada (n=120), Mexico (n=63), and the US (n=400). PLHIV, people living with HIV; US, United States; U=U, Undetectable = Untransmittable. *P<0.01 for U=U informed vs uninformed. Conclusion Being informed of U=U was associated with higher treatment satisfaction, and higher mental and sexual health outcomes among PLHIV in North America. Receipt of U=U was associated with significantly higher treatment satisfaction among PLHIV in the US and Canada, and significantly more PLHIV with optimal mental and sexual health in the US. Disclosures Frank Spinelli, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Bruce Richman, JD, ViiV Healthcare (Consultant) Patricia De Los Rios, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Benjamin Young, MD, PhD, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Nicolas Van de Velde, PhD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Chinyere Okoli, PharmD, MSc, DIP, GlaxoSmithKline (Shareholder)ViiV Healthcare (Employee)
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".