“I decided in my heart I have to complete the sessions”: A qualitative study on the acceptability of an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention among women engaged in sex work in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The HIV burden remains a critical public health concern and women engaged in sex work [WESW] are at significantly higher risk compared to the general adult population. Similar to other sub-Saharan African countries, Uganda reports high rates of HIV prevalence among WESW. Yet, they have not been targeted by theory-informed HIV prevention intervention approaches. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 20 WESW upon intervention completion to explore their experiences with an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention that was implemented as part of a combination intervention tested in a clinical trial in Uganda (2018-2023. Specifically, we explored their initial motivations and concerns for participating in the intervention, barriers and facilitators to attendance, and their feedback on specific intervention characteristics. RESULTS: The main expectations revolved around access to health-related information, including information on STIs, HIV, and PrEP as well as on how one can protect themselves while engaging in sex work. Initial concerns were around potential breach of confidentiality and fear of arrest. The main facilitators for session attendance were the motivation to learn health-related information, the attitude of facilitators, and the incentives received for participation, whereas main challenges were related to family commitments and work schedules. WESW appreciated the group format of the intervention and found the location and times of the intervention delivery acceptable. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings suggest that the HIV risk reduction intervention was appropriate and acceptable to WESW. Yet, WESW experience unique concerns and barriers that need to be accounted for when designing interventions targeting this population, especially in resource-limited settings where sex work is illegal and highly stigmatized. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03583541.
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 | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".