Relational Factors and HIV Testing Practices: Qualitative Insights from Urban Refugee Youth in Kampala, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the global phenomenon of refugee urbanization, little is known of relational contexts that shape HIV testing among urban refugee youth. We explored perspectives, experiences, and preferences for social support in HIV testing among refugee youth aged 16-24 in Kampala, Uganda. We conducted five focus groups with refugee youth (n = 44) and five in-depth key informant interviews. Participant narratives signaled relational contexts shaping HIV testing included informal sources (intimate partners and family members) and formal sources (peer educators and professionals). There was heterogeneity in perspectives based on relationship dynamics. While some felt empowered to test with partners, others feared negative relationship consequences. Participant narratives reflected kinship ties that could facilitate testing with family, while others feared coercion and judgment. Peer support was widely accepted. Professional support was key for HIV testing as well as conflict-related trauma. Findings emphasize bonding and bridging social capital as salient components of enabling HIV testing environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".