Rehabilitation in HIV/AIDS: Development of an Expanded Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In industrialized countries where HIV infection is becoming a chronic, episodic condition, rehabilitation services have the potential to play an expanded role for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs). However, little is known about rehabilitation in the context of HIV. This paper documents the development of an enhanced, multidisciplinary conceptual framework of rehabilitation in the context of HIV, using the perceptions of PLHAs and rehabilitation professionals. Rehabilitation, broadly defined, is a dynamic process that includes all prevention and/or treatment activities and/or services that address body impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions for an individual. The framework was developed through broad consultation and interviews with thirteen key informants. Themes that emerged from analysis of interviews related to concepts of rehabilitation in the context of HIV, rehabilitation professionals' roles in the context of HIV, and barriers to access and delivery of rehabilitation services. While there was some variation, key informants generally viewed rehabilitation as a goal-oriented and client-centered process with the potential to impact a range of life domains. Themes were presented to members of a national advisory committee (including PLHAs and health care providers), who produced the foundation of the HIV rehabilitation framework. The framework uses the perspective of the person living with HIV/AIDS, and includes individual life domains that may be affected by HIV, drawing and expanding upon the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
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 | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".