Spatial Patterns and Associated Factors of HIV Seropositivity among Adults in Ethiopia from EDHS 2016: A Spatial and multilevel analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundHIV is a major public health problem, especially in developing countries including Ethiopia. Exploring the spatial pattern, distribution and associated factors of HIV Seropositivity is important to monitor, and design effective intervention programs. Therefore, this study showed associated factors and spatial variation of HIV Seropositivity in Ethiopia.MethodThis secondary data analysis, sampling technique and procedures were done by Ethiopipan Central Statistical Agency. A total sample of 25,774 individuals data were extracted from the 2016 EDHS data mainly HIV biomarkers, IR, MR, and GPS. Spatial heterogeneity analysis were done using tools like Morans I, Local G*, Interpolation, and Kulldorff’s scan statistic. The spatial analysis was carried out by using open source software (QGIS, GeoDa, SaTScan). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to identify both individual and household level factors associated with HIV Seropositivity and the analysis was carried out by Stata 14. Finally AOR with 95% confidence interval of mixed-effect logistic regression result in the full model was used to report.ResultThe prevalence of HIV/AIDS was found 0.93% at the national level. The highest prevalence regions were Gambela, Addis Ababa, Harari, and Dire Dawa, which accounts for 4.79%, 3.36%, 2.65%, and 2.6%, respectively. Similarly, the most likely high-risk HIV Seropositivity spatial cluster was found in the Gambela region and Addis Ababa followed by Harari and Diredawa. In a multilevel analysis at the individual level being married [AOR = 2.19 95%CI: (1.11, 4.31)] and previously married [AOR = 6.45, 95%CI (3.06, 13.59)] were significantly associated with serropositivity. Regarding household level place of residence [urban: AOR = 6.13 CI: (3.12, 12.06)] were associated with HIV Seropositivity.ConclusionThe distribution of HIV cases was not random. High cluster HIV cases were found in Gambela, Addis Abeba, Harari, and Dire Dawa. At the individual level, some characters are high risk like being previously married, start sex at a younger age, female household headed, urban residence, and lower household size is more affected by HIV/AIDS. So any concerned bodywork around this risk group and area can be effective in the reduction of transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".