Couple-Based Intervention to Improve HIV Care Engagement for Women and their Partners in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Outcomes of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated a couple-based intervention targeting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care needs of women, with the option to support HIV-related needs of male partners. Adult women with HIV adherence difficulties in a monogamous relationship with a male partner for ≥6 months were recruited in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Twenty couples were randomized (1:1) to either START Together, a five-session manualized behavioral intervention, or treatment as usual, adherence counseling referral. Assessments were completed at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up. Of the ten couples randomized to START Together, 70% attended at least one intervention session (feasibility); of those, 71% attended all five sessions (acceptability). Independently rated interventionist fidelity was very high ( M ≥ 2.94 out of 3). Women's self-reported antiretroviral therapy adherence increased similarly in both interventions. For men, self-reported antiretroviral therapy adherence increased up to 25 percentage points in START Together, but not treatment as usual. Findings suggest that START Together may be potentially beneficial for improving HIV outcomes for men.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".