Conceptualizing the integration of HIV treatment and prevention: findings from a process evaluation of a community-based, national capacity-building intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper responds to a gap in knowledge about the conceptualization of integration in community-based AIDS organizations (CBAOs). METHODS: A community-based process evaluation was conducted of a national intervention, developed by the Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange (CATIE), to enhance treatment information provision in CBAOs and encourage its integration with prevention services. Our study involved 13 interviews with intervention participants in 6 CBAOs across Canada, CATIE staff, and funders, as well as a 25-person verification exercise. RESULTS: Intervention participants conceptualized integration as linking front-line HIV treatment, health promotion and prevention services, emphasizing mediation between scientific and lay knowledge, the political context of integration and the role of social determinants in clients' health and access to services. Challenges to integration include high staff turnover and inflexible funding structures. Complex health education related to the relationship between viral load and HIV transmission is a critical area of integrated service delivery. CONCLUSION: Study findings help distinguish a community-based concept of HIV-related integration from alternative uses of the term while pointing out key tensions associated with efforts to integrate HIV prevention and treatment in a community-based context.
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 | 0.045 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".