Disclosure of HIV-serodiscordant relationships and association with viral suppression: results from the Positive Plus One study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effects of disclosure of HIV-serodiscordant relationships on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the effect of relationship disclosure on HIV viral suppression, and hypothesized that disclosure by HIV-positive and HIV-negative partners would be associated with viral suppression in the HIV-positive partner. METHODS: We conducted a Canadian national online and telephone-administered survey of HIV-positive and HIV-negative partners in serodiscordant relationships. The primary outcome was self-reported viral suppression. Multivariable analyses were undertaken using Firth logistic regression. RESULTS: = 0.13). Among HIV-positive partners, disclosure of the relationship to healthcare professionals increased the odds of viral suppression (aOR = 4.7; CI: 2.13, 10.51) after adjusting for age, education, and relationship turmoil due to HIV. Increasing age (aOR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.07, 1.55) and education (aOR = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.15, 5.26) were also associated with viral suppression. Among HIV-negative partners, relationship disclosure was not associated with viral suppression and HIV-negative heterosexual men were less likely to report that their HIV-positive partners were virally suppressed (aOR = 0.24; CI: 0.09, 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure of HIV-serodiscordant status by HIV-positive participants to healthcare professionals was associated with increased odds of viral suppression. Similar effects were not evident among HIV-negative participants. Future work should explore factors that empower relationship disclosure and incorporate them into supportive services for HIV-serodiscordant relationships.
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".