Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies to Improve Participation of a Couple-Based Intervention to Address Women’s Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Couple-based interventions (CBIs), despite strong efficacy in improving numerous HIV risk behaviors, are not widely available and have not been tested to improve women's antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. We examined barriers and facilitators to participation in a CBI based on cognitive behavioral couple therapy for women's ART adherence in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women with HIV (n = 15) and men of mixed HIV status (n = 15). Thematic analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Facilitators mostly related to the couple's relationship, including having an existing healthy relationship, men's desire to support their partners, and a potential opportunity for men's HIV disclosure. Barriers included a lack of understanding of how a CBI approach would be useful for women's ART adherence, sole focus on women if male partners were also living with HIV, and men's lack of prior HIV status disclosure to female partners. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that relationship context and the male partner's HIV status need to be addressed during recruitment, enrolment, and during the intervention to promote uptake.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".