Supporting Treatment for Anti-Retroviral Therapy (START) Together: Protocol for a pilot, randomized, couple-based intervention to promote women's ART adherence and men's engagement in HIV care in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: South Africa currently has the greatest number of people with HIV globally. The country has not yet met its 95-95-95 goals, with different gaps in the HIV care cascade for women and men. This paper reports on a protocol to pilot test a couple-based intervention designed to improve women's antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and men's engagement in care in heterosexual couples living in the Vulindlela area of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Study goals are two-fold: (1) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and fidelity of the experimental intervention, START Together, and (2) collect efficacy data on START Together for women's ART adherence, men's engagement in HIV care, and the couple's relationship functioning. Methods: = 20) who were not engaged with ART adherence (defined via self-reported ART difficulties, record of missed clinic visits, or viral non-suppression) are the target patients; male partners are not required to know or disclose their HIV status to be part of the study. Couples are randomized 1:1 to the experimental treatment (START Together) or treatment as usual (referrals to the local clinic to support ART adherence or any other HIV-related care). START Together is a 5-session intervention based in cognitive-behavioral couple therapy, which is a skill-based intervention focusing on communication and problem-solving skills, and Life Steps, a problem-solving intervention identifying barriers and solutions to medication adherence. Couples are assessed at baseline, post-treatment (8 weeks post-randomization), and follow-up (12 weeks post-randomization). Conclusion: This study will provide preliminary implementation and efficacy data on whether this novel approach has potential to improve women and men's HIV and healthcare-related needs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.005 |
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".