Examining HIV-related stigma and discrimination in Ghana: what are the major contributors?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although AIDS-related stigma and discrimination are considered detrimental to HIV prevention activities, not many studies have attempted to understand stigma and discrimination in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Ghana. METHODS: Using the 2008 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey and applying the ordinary least-squares technique, this study examined what influences AIDS-related stigma and discrimination among men and women in Ghana. RESULTS: The results indicate that Ghanaian men and women with relatively high knowledge about HIV/AIDS had low stigmatising and discriminatory attitudes (b=-0.097, P<0.01; b=-0.083, P<0.01), respectively. On the other hand, respondents who endorsed more myths about HIV transmission had high stigma and discriminatory attitudes. Women who had ever tested for their HIV serostatus reported significantly lower levels of stigma and discrimination (b=-0.085, P<0.01) compared with those who had not tested for HIV. Individuals who are highly educated, employed and in wealthy households all reported significantly lower levels of stigma and discrimination compared with those who are uneducated, unemployed and in poorer households. CONCLUSION: AIDS-related stigma and discrimination can be reduced by encouraging HIV testing, and ensuring that Ghanaians understand and have factual knowledge regarding the transmission of the disease.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it