Short Communication: Awareness of HIV Self-Care Interventions Across Global Regions: Results from a Values and Preferences Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high burden of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa places significant demands on health care services. Interventions such as HIV self-testing, and pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) could empower individuals to determine their HIV status and prevent HIV acquisition. In 2018, the World Health Organization disseminated an online, anonymous, global values and preferences survey to adults 18 years of age and older. The survey aimed to inform guidance on awareness, use, and preferences around self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using Pearson's chi-squared test to compare awareness of HIV self-testing, PrEP and PEP across five global regions. Our analysis included 814 participants from 110 countries. We noted that respondents from Africa reported higher awareness of HIV interventions than participants from Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, and Asia. Our finding highlights an opportunity to expand self-care interventions for HIV prevention and management in Africa.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".