Correlates of mobile phone use in HIV care: Results from a cross-sectional study in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a major disease burden worldwide. Challenges include retaining patients in care and optimizing adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). One possible solution is using mobile phones as reminder tools. The main aim of our study was to identify patient demographic groups least likely to use mobile phones as reminder tools in HIV care. DESIGN: The data came from a cross-sectional study at the Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, Soweto Township, South Africa. METHODS: A comprehensive questionnaire was used to interview 883 HIV infected patients receiving ART. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the influence of age, gender, education level, marital status, number of sexual partners in the last three months, income level, and employment status on the use of mobile phone as reminders for clinic appointments and taking medication. RESULTS: Patient groups significantly associated with being less likely to use mobile phones as clinic appointment reminders were: a) patients 45 years or older, b) women, and c) patients with only primary or no schooling level. Patient groups significantly associated with being less likely to use mobile phones as medication reminders were: a) patients 35 years or older and b) patients with a lower monthly income. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting being a woman, of older age, lower education, and socio-economic level were risk factors for the low usage of mobile phones as reminder aids. Future studies should assimilate reasons for this, such that patient-specific barriers to implementation are identified and interventions can be tailored.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".