A grounded theory of social participation among older women living with HIV / Une théorie ancrée pour analyser la participation sociale chez les femmes âgées atteintes du VIH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As adults age with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the role for rehabilitation continues to emerge. Understanding how social participation is affected among women aging with HIV can inform occupational therapy assessment and treatment. PURPOSE: Our purpose was to develop a theoretical model that describes the experiences of social participation from the perspective of older women living with HIV. METHOD: A grounded theory methodological approach was utilized. We conducted interviews with 20 women living with HIV, age 50 or older, to explore various aspects of social participation, including self-care, relationships with others, and access to health and social services. Emergent themes informed the theoretical model. FINDINGS: The theoretical model comprises four concepts related to social participation: social engagement, social isolation, contrasting perceptions about factors variably influencing participation, and contextual influences that may enhance or hinder social participation. IMPLICATIONS: Women aging with HIV experience social participation as a dynamic process involving social engagement and isolation. Contextual influences may promote and impede social participation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".