Impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions: Prevalence and associations among persons living with HIV/AIDS in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To measure the prevalence of and associations among impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions in persons living with HIV in British Columbia to inform support and care programs, policy and research. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based sample of persons living with HIV in British Columbia was obtained through an anonymous survey sent to members of the British Columbia Persons With AIDS Society. The survey addressed the experience of physical and mental impairments, and the experience and level of activity limitations and participation restrictions. Associations were measured in three ways: 1) impact of types of impairment on social restriction; 2) impact of specific limitations on social restriction; and 3) independent association of overall impairments and limitations on restriction levels. Logistic regression was used to measure associations with social restriction, while ordinal logistic regression was used to measure associations with a three-category measure of restriction level. RESULTS: The survey was returned by 762 (50.5%) of the BCPWA participants. Over ninety percent of the population experienced one or more impairments, with one-third reporting over ten. Prevalence of activity limitations and participation restrictions was 80.4% and 93.2%, respectively. The presence of social restrictions was most closely associated with mental function impairments (OR: 7.0 for impairment vs. no impairment; 95% CI: 4.7 - 10.4). All limitations were associated with social restriction. Among those with <or= 200 CD4 cells/mm3, odds of being at a higher restriction level were lower among those on antiretrovirals (OR: 0.3 for antiretrovirals vs. no antiretrovirals; 95% CI: 0.1-0.9), while odds of higher restriction were increased with higher limitation (OR: 3.6 for limitation score of 1-5 vs. no limitation, 95%CI: 0.9-14.2; OR: 24.7 for limitation score > 5 vs. no limitation, 95%CI: 4.9-125.0). Among those with > 200 CD4 cells/mm3, the odds of higher restriction were increased with higher limitation (OR: 2.7 for limitation score of 1-5 vs. no limitation, 95%CI: 1.4-5.1; OR: 8.6 for limitation score > 5 vs. no limitation, 95%CI: 3.9-18.8), as well as by additional number of impairments (OR:1.2 for every additional impairment; 95% CI:1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based sample of people living with HIV has been experiencing extremely high rates of impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. Furthermore, the complex inter-relationships identified amongst the levels reveal lessons for programming, policy and research in terms of the factors that contribute most to a higher quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".