Evaluating the Efficacy of the Sudita Model for Enhancing HIV Disclosure Among Couples in Jambi City, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the impact of the Sudita Model on the frequency and timeliness of HIV-positive status disclosure to partners in Jambi City, Indonesia. A quasi-experimental design employing a non-equivalent control group with a pre-test and post-test approach was utilized. The research was conducted in Jambi City, Jambi Province, Indonesia, beginning in June 2021. The ADDIE model approach, which includes 1) Analysis, 2) Design, 3) Development, 4) Implementation, and 5) Evaluation, was employed for model development. A sample size of 78 individuals was divided into two groups: an intervention group utilizing the Sudita Model and a control group using the Ministry of Health Module (M. Kemenkes). The research variables included the number of HIV status disclosures to partners and the time (in days) required for disclosing HIV status to partners between the intervention and control groups before, after one month, and after three months of intervention. Data analysis was performed using the General Linear Model Repeated Measures multivariate test. The results indicated a significant increase in the average number of HIV-positive status disclosures to partners after one and three months of intervention, rising from an average of 16 individuals (at month one) to 26 individuals (at month three), with a p-value of 0.000. The Sudita Model intervention results demonstrated a significant enhancement in the timeliness of HIV-positive status disclosure to partners, with an average disclosure time of 28.9 days for the Sudita Model compared to 54.4 days for the Ministry of Health Module. In conclusion, the Sudita Model is more effective in increasing the frequency and speed of HIV-positive status disclosure among couples than the Ministry of Health Model. The Sudita Model's influence on accelerating HIV-positive status disclosure to partners suggests that changes in the behavior of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) can be facilitated by providing comprehensive information about HIV/AIDS and continuous support tailored to the evolving needs of PLWHA via persuasive communication approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".