Spectrum of Substance Use, Reasons for Use and Perceived Effects on Treatment among People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLWHIV) in Benue State, Nigeria; A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Substance use is on increase and a major public health problem contributing about 1.7 million deaths among teenagers globally. Ironically, some are socially acceptable and freely consumed during social activities. They are consumed commonly for social, religious and medicinal reasons. This study aims to assess substance use, types, reasons and its perceived effects among PLHIV in Benue State, Nigeria METHODS: The study was at Centre for Infectious Diseases Control (CIDC), 161 Nigerian Air Force Hospital, Makurdi at Benue state, Nigeria. Qualitative data was collected using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) among five homogeneous groups involving 40 discussants [30 and 10 health care workers]. The recorded discussions were transcribed verbatim, coded based on predetermined themes and reported. RESULTS: The commonest psychoactive substance used by People living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLWHIV) for both males and females was Alcohol followed by Kola nut and Bitter Cola. Others were; cannabis, overdose dose of Rohypnol, Tramadol and diazepam; paracitamol mixed with ‘la-cassera’ soft drink and codeine in cough syrup as well as Marijuana. Major reasons for use included to increase work, sexual performance, reading time and appetite; reduce nausea, vomiting and to manage stress or boredom. They perceived most substance to be safe though few expressed their concern on the possible interaction with Antiretroviral (ARV) medications and possibility of increasing Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) effect of some drugs. This they said depends on type and dose of consumption. CONCLUSION: Substance use among PLWHIV is common. Misconceptions and poor appreciation of effect of these substance use among these clients abound. Every effort should be made to tame this menace.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".