Acceptability determinants of a proposal to reduce antiretroviral treatment to an oral two-drug regimen among patients living with HIV and physicians in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An oral two-drug regimen (O2DR) in the form of a once-a-day single tablet is now recommended for treatment switching and treatment initiation for HIV. In clinical care, the process of treatment change refers to adaptation issues, both individual and within the care relationship. The study aim is to present the determinants involved in the acceptability of switching to O2DR in the PROBI (Patient-Reported Outcomes BItherapy) qualitative study. The study includes 30 interviews: 15 were conducted with doctors caring for people living with HIV, 15 were conducted with patients who had been offered a change of treatment. A double analysis was carried out: lexicometric analysis to highlight the structuring of the discourse around the change in treatment and a thematic analysis to understand the associated issues more precisely. The results highlighted common concerns with respect to switching to O2DR. Also, the caregiver-patient relationship was a central determinant in treatment switching. Information, knowledge and representations of O2DR are also factors facilitating treatment change and should be taken into account for doctors' and patients' adherence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".