Infection control in home-based care for people living with HIV/AIDS/TB in South Africa: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of HIV and AIDS patients in sub-Saharan African countries receive health care services at home. Yet research on infection control in home-based care settings is virtually non-existent. This study explored infection control practices in home-based care in a South African province with a high HIV/TB prevalence. We conducted interviews with 10 managers of home-based care organizations and 10 focus group discussions with 80 volunteer caregivers working in high HIV/TB prevalent communities in South Africa. Findings show that volunteers had insufficient training on infection control. Materials necessary for the maintenance of hygiene and protective equipment were in short supply and the protective equipment supplied was of poor quality. Home-based care patients lived in crowded and poor conditions, and family members were negatively disposed to the use of protective devices. Together, these factors put volunteers and family caregivers at risk of infection with HIV and TB. Health policy should address the training of volunteer caregivers and the regular supply of good quality materials to ensure effective infection control. It is also important to educate families on infection control. Finally, there is a need to integrate HIV and TB control at the community level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".