Comparison of coping strategies and supports between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people living with HIV in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex historical and cultural factors have contributed to the HIV epidemic among Aboriginal populations in Canada. This study assesses social supports, adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms, stress, and mastery of Canadian-born Aboriginal and Canadian-born Caucasian people living with HIV in Ontario and posits that coping and social support are important micro- and meso-level factors associated with the epidemic. This cross-sectional analysis included questionnaire data collected from 2007 to 2011 at HIV clinics in Toronto. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, respectively. Correlates of social support and coping were determined using univariate and multivariable linear regression. The analysis included 70 Aboriginal and 665 Caucasian participants. Aboriginal participants had lower levels of employment, education, and annual household income. Aboriginal participants reported more overall (7 vs. 4, p = 0.0003), ongoing (4 vs. 2, p = 0.0004), and early childhood (2 vs. 1, p = 0.02) stressors. Maladaptive coping, adaptive coping, and mastery scores were similar between Aboriginal and Caucasian participants. In multivariable analysis, injection drug use and lower education levels were significant correlates of higher maladaptive coping and lower overall support scores. Despite numerous socioeconomic challenges and personal stressors, Aboriginal people living with HIV who are accessing care exhibited comparable coping and mastery scores to Canadian-born Caucasian people living with HIV, suggesting remarkable strengths within Aboriginal people living with HIV and their communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".