Contraceptive Choice and Use of Dual Protection Among Women Living with HIV in Canada : Priorities for Integrated Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT Preventing unintended pregnancy and HIV transmission is important for women with HIV, but little is known about their contraceptive use, particularly under current antiretroviral therapy (ART) recommendations for treatment and prevention. METHODS The prevalence of contraceptive use and of dual protection was examined among 453 sexually active women with HIV aged 16–49 and enrolled in the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study in 2013–2015; multivariable logistic regression was used to identify correlates of use. Two definitions of dual protection were assessed: the World Health Organization (WHO) definition (consistent condom use alongside another effective method) and an expanded definition (consistent condom use or a suppressed HIV viral load alongside an effective method). RESULTS Overall, 73% of women used effective contraceptives, primarily male condoms (45%) or tubal ligation (19%). Eighteen percent practiced WHO-defined dual protection, and 40% practiced dual protection according to the expanded definition. Characteristics positively associated with contraceptive use were younger age, having been pregnant, being heterosexual, being unaware of ART's HIV prevention benefits and having had partners of unknown HIV status (odds ratios, 1.1–6.7). Younger age and perceived inability to become pregnant were positively associated with both definitions of dual protection (1.04–3.3); additionally, WHO-defined dual protection was associated with perceiving HIV care to be women-centered and having had partners of unknown HIV status (2.0–4.1), and dual protection under the expanded definition was related to having been pregnant (2.7). CONCLUSIONS Future research should explore how sustained ART and broader contraceptive options can support women's sexual and reproductive health care needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".