MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112142838 · doi:10.1177/0193945906286602

Stigma Associated With Ghanaian Caregivers of AIDS Patients

2006· article· en· W2112142838 on OpenAlexaff
Prudence P. Mwinituo, Judy Mill

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily caregiversStigma (botany)SecrecyFocus groupIsolation (microbiology)MedicineSocial isolationSocial supportSocial stigmaPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatryFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Social psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the experiences of informal caregivers of AIDS patients in Accra, the capital city of Ghana. Fifteen interviews were completed in 2002 with 11 informal caregivers, including wives, mothers, boyfriends, daughters, sons and brothers of AIDS patients. Three major themes emerge in the analysis of the interviews with caregivers: stigma, caregiver burden, and caregiver commitment. In this article, the authors focus on the theme of stigma by documenting its presence and highlighting its impact on caregiving activities. Caregivers go to great effort to not only "hide" their patients but also their care giving activities, resulting in the social isolation of both patients and their caregivers. Many caregivers live in secrecy, not sharing their family member's diagnosis with extended family members. As a result, they receive limited support from the extended family. Stigma results in negative attitudes of neighbors, relatives, and health care workers toward caregivers and their patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations94
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207