Resilience and associated factors in orphaned and separated adolescents in Kenya: Understanding the relationship with care environment and HIV risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orphans are at higher risk of HIV infection and several important HIV risk factors than non-orphans; however, this may be due to a combination of related social, psychological, and economic factors, as well as care environment, rather than orphan status alone. Understanding these complex relationships may aid policy makers in supporting evidence-based, cost-effective programming for this vulnerable population. This longitudinal study uses a causal effect model to examine, through decomposition, the relationship between care environment and HIV risk factors in orphaned and separated adolescents and youths (OSAY) in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya; considering resilience, social, peer, or family support, volunteering, or having one's material needs met as potential mediators. We analysed survey responses from 1105 OSAY age 10-26 living in Charitable Children's Institutions (CCI) (orphanages) and family-based care settings (FBS). Follow-up time was 7-36 months. Care in CCIs (vs. FBS) was associated with a decreased likelihood of engaging in forced, exchange, and consensual sex. Excess relative risks (ERR) attributable to the indirect pathway, mediation, or interaction were not significant in any model. Care environment was not statistically associated with differences in substance use. Our findings support the direct, unmediated, association between institutional care and HIV risk factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".