Preventative behaviours and COVID-19 infection in a Canadian cohort of people living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined preventative behaviour practices with respect to COVID-19 among people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). Using a cross-sectional survey from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canadian HIV Trials Network study (CTN 328) of people living with HIV on vaccine immunogenicity, we examined the relationships between participant characteristics and behavioural practices intended to prevent COVID-19 infection. Participants living in four Canadian urban centers were enrolled between April 2021-January 2022, at which time they responded to a questionnaire on preventative behaviour practices. Questionnaire and clinical data were combined to explore relationships between preventive behaviours and (1) known COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment, (2) multimorbidity, (3) developing symptomatic COVID-19 infection, and (4) developing symptomatic COVID-19 infection during the Omicron wave. Among 375 participants, 49 had COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment and 88 post-enrolment. The proportion of participants reporting always engaging in preventative behaviours included 87% masking, 79% physical distancing, 70% limiting social gatherings, 65% limiting contact with at-risk individuals, 33% self-isolating due to symptoms, and 26% self-quarantining after possible exposure. Participants with known COVID-19 infection pre-enrolment were more likely to self-quarantine after possible exposure although asymptomatic (65.0% vs 23.4%, p < 0.001; Chi-square test). Participants with multiple comorbidities more likely endorsed physical distancing (85.7% vs 75.5%, p = 0.044; Chi-square test), although this was not significant in logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, number of household members, number of bedrooms/bathrooms in the household per person, influenza immunization, and working in close physical proximity to others. Overall, participants reported frequent practice of preventative behaviours.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".