Understanding Pregnancy Intentions among Black Women Living with HIV in Two North American Cities and One African City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increased access to and improvements in contraceptives, unintended pregnancy continues to be a problem globally and is associated with adverse outcomes for mothers and infants. This paper seeks to unravel the mediators of intended versus unintended pregnancies among Black women living with HIV. The paper draws on survey data from a broader multi-country mixed methods study that used a community-based participatory research approach to investigate the psychosocial experiences of Black mothers living with HIV. The study participants were Black mothers living with HIV drawn through venue-based sampling from Ottawa, Canada (n = 89), Port Harcourt, Nigeria (n = 400), and Miami, Florida, United States (n = 201). We used Hierarchical Binary Logistic Regression Modelling (HBLM) to estimate the independent associations of pregnancy intention (intended versus unintended) with blocks of predictor variables (sociodemographic, sociocultural, and psychosocial predictors) at alpha level of 0.5. Specifically, 44.2%, 67.3%, and 17.7% of the women had unintended pregnancies in Ottawa, Miami, and Port Harcourt, respectively. There were important results from the HBLM. The odds of intended relative to unintended pregnancies were (i) reduced in larger households (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.36/0.87), but increased with employment (OR = 7.84, 95% CI = 1.52/40.54) and HIV knowledge (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.42/6.90) in Ottawa; (ii) reduced with age (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.88/0.98), but increased with marriage (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.43/5.88) and social support (pregnancy (OR = 3.77, 95% CI = 1.98/7.19) in Port Harcourt; (iii) reduced with social support (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.91/1.00) but increased with HIV status disclosure (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.01/2.97) and the influence of specific referent (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.13/2.52) in Miami-FL. The incidence of unintended pregnancy is more prevalent among Black women living with HIV in the North American cities relative to the African city. Also, unique combinations of sociodemographic, sociocultural, and psychosocial factors influence pregnancy intention in each city. This implies that policy and practices to address reproductive health needs of WLHIV must consider these contextual issues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".