Sexual Relationship Power Equity Is Associated With Consistent Condom Use and Fewer Experiences of Recent Violence Among Women Living With HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual relationship power (SRP) inequities, including having a controlling partner, have not been widely examined among women living with HIV (WLWH). We measured the prevalence and key outcomes of relationship control among WLWH in Canada. METHODS: Baseline data from WLWH (≥16 years), reporting consensual sex in the last month enrolled in a Canadian community-collaborative cohort study in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, included the relationship control SRP subscale by Pulerwitz (2000). Scale scores were dichotomized into medium/low (score = 1-2.82) vs. high relationship control (score = 2.82-4), and high scores indicate greater SRP equity. Cronbach's alpha assessed scale reliability. Bivariate analyses compared women with high vs. medium/low relationship control. Crude and adjusted multinomial regression examined associations between relationship control and condom use [consistent (ref), inconsistent, or never]; any sexual, physical, and/or emotional violence; and physical and/or sexual violence [never (ref), recent (≤3 months ago), and previous (>3 months ago)]. RESULTS: Overall, 473 sexually active WLWH (33% of cohort), median age = 39 (IQR = 33-46) years, 81% on antiretroviral therapy, and 78% with viral loads <50 copies/mL were included. The subscale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92). WLWH with high relationship control (80%) were more likely ( P < 0.05) to be in a relationship, have no children, have greater resilience, and report less sociostructural inequities. In adjusted models, high relationship control was associated with lower odds of inconsistent vs. consistent condom use [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.39 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.85)], any recent violence [aOR: 0.14 (0.04-0.47)] as well as recent physical and/or sexual [aOR : 0.05 (0.02-0.17)] but not previous violence (vs. never). DISCUSSION: Prioritizing relationship equity and support for WLWH is critical for addressing violence and promoting positive health outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".