MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132995973

Understanding the barriers and facilitators to HIV drug adherence among adolescents: An exploratory study

2008· dissertation· W7132995973 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michelle Di Risio

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsExploratory researchQualitative researchHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Medication adherenceDiseaseRegimenPublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Previous research demonstrates that HIV+ adolescents are sub-optimally adherent to their HIV medications. Objectives: (1) to understand the obstacles to adherence and the factors that influence optimal adherence as perceived by HIV+ adolescents; (2) to explore their understanding of the disease and their medical therapy; (3) to understand the beliefs, values, and processes underlying behavioural patterns in relation to adherence; and (4) to measure self-reported adherence. Methods. 9 HIV+ adolescents were interviewed 3 times over 4 months. Qualitative data was reviewed for themes related to the impact of living with HIV in relation to drug adherence. Self-reported adherence rates were measured. Results. Most study participants were highly adherent to their HIV regimen ( ge; 95%). Conclusions. Access to medication, family support, self-efficacy, integration of HIV status in to identity, high health literacy, and perceived adherence benefits outweigh the burden of managing their lives as HIV+ persons facilitates optimal adherence in HIV+ adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→