Barriers to adherence to antiretroviral therapy: identifying priority areas for people with HIV and healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenges to antiretroviral therapy adherence are well-known and continue to be a major hurdle in HIV care. The objective of this paper is to identify barriers to antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence that are relevant to HIV care from the perspective of people living with HIV and healthcare and social service professionals. METHODS: This study used an online survey design to collect information from the two groups. A total of 100 areas that covered six domains and 20 subdomains were administered to people living with HIV and care professionals in Canada and France. The survey asked participants to rate the importance of each area for HIV care on a four-point Likert scale. Any areas rated 3 or 4 were considered important and ranked. A Chi-square test was conducted for the difference between the groups, people living with HIV and professionals, and between women and men. RESULTS: A response rate of 87% (58/66) in Canada and 65% (38/58) was achieved. 15 of 43 (35%) areas were endorsed as important barriers by both groups, across countries and sex-covering subdomains - drug cost coverage, challenging material circumstances, HIV stigma, and privacy concerns, affect, motivation, beliefs, acceptance of HIV, comorbidity, side effects, and demands and organisation of daily life. People living with HIV identified two, and care professionals identified nine, additional areas as important barriers to HIV care across different domains and subdomains. CONCLUSION: The study identified some common and distinct barriers to ART from the perspective of the people living with HIV and care professionals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".