“I think it’s communication and trust and sharing everything”: Qualitative evidence for a model of healthy intimate relationships in Black women living with HIV and men in KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In South Africa, couple-based interventions (CBIs) have been used to increase HIV testing, reduce HIV transmission, and shift relationship dynamics. To understand local definitions of healthy relationships, this study sought to collect qualitative data on a model of healthy relationships in a semi-rural area of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with HIV-positive women (n = 15) and men of mixed HIV status (n = 15) who were in heterosexual, monogamous relationships (not with each other). Thematic analyses guided coding. Three primary healthy relationship behaviour themes emerged, labelled open communication, couple-level problem-solving, and active relationship building, which were related to various relationship facets (trust, support, respect, commitment, and connection). We purposively explored contextual themes, namely the role of HIV, positive community involvement, and power dynamics, to better situate the healthy relationship behaviour themes. HIV was not central to relationship conceptualisations and three different power structures (shared power/flexible gender norms, shared power/traditional gender norms, male-dominated power/traditional gender norms) were described as being healthy. This model of healthy relationships is similar to observed definitions in other African countries and in high-income settings. Findings can inform HIV programming content for couples in KwaZulu-Natal, particularly the active relationship building component.
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 | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".