Systematic review of stigma reducing interventions for African/Black diasporic women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Literature indicates that racism, sexism, homophobia and HIV-related stigma have adverse impacts on health, well-being, and quality of life among HIV-positive women of African descent (African/Black diaspora). However, limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing stigma tailored for these women. This study systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized observational and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing stigma experienced by this population. METHODS: The Cochrane methodology was used to develop a search strategy in consultation with a librarian scientist. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, Ovid EMBASE, PsycInfo, and 10 others. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for potential relevance and conducted the Cochrane grading of RCTs to assess risk of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of non-randomized studies. Eligible papers were selected if they employed an intervention design with African/Black diasporic women living with HIV as the target population and had a primary outcome of stigma reduction. RESULTS: Of the five studies that met all of the eligibility criteria, four demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HIV-related stigma. Only two of the five studies were designed specifically for HIV-positive African/Black diasporic women. Limitations included the absence of interventions addressing other forms of stigma and discrimination (e.g. gender discrimination, racism, heterosexism). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there are limited interventions designed to address multiple forms of stigma, including gender and racial discrimination, experienced by HIV-positive African/Black diasporic women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".