MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050600561 · doi:10.1177/000841740507200206

Understanding the Experience of HIV/AIDS for Women: Implications for Occupational Therapists

2005· article· en· W2050600561 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C.E. Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapySpiritualityCoping (psychology)Qualitative researchPerspective (graphical)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineRehabilitationAntiretroviral therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistGerontologyPsychiatryAlternative medicineFamily medicinePhysical therapySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Within the past few years, HIV/AIDS has shifted from being an acute, palliative disease to one that is more chronic and episodic in nature. This shift has major implications for the role of occupational therapy in women's lives. Very few studies, however, have examined the perspective of women living with HIV/AIDS from an occupational therapy perspective. PURPOSE: This qualitative study was designed to examine the experiences of five women living with HIV/AIDS in Southern Ontario and to begin to explore the implications of these findings for occupational therapy. METHOD: Through the implementation of five in-depth interviews, a phenomenological approach was used to explore the lived experience of women with HIV/AIDS. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged: fearing disclosure, experiencing challenges (physical and psychological), having supportive networks, and coping positively with being HIV positive (spirituality and opportunity for living and learning). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There are several potential roles for occupational therapy in working with women who are living with HIV/AIDS More studies need to be pursued in this area of rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.540
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.001 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207