‘Waiting at the dinner table for scraps’: a qualitative study of the help-seeking experiences of heterosexual men living with HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterise the help-seeking experiences of heterosexual men living with HIV infection and explain these experiences in relation to the broader social relations and discourses in which they are embedded. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and theoretically informed constructionist grounded theory. SETTING: With one exception, focus groups were conducted in the offices of community-based AIDS service organisations across Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 40 HIV-infected heterosexual men aged 18 years or older. RESULTS: Heterosexual men living with HIV perceive themselves to be relegated to the margins of a health care and service field that was developed historically within a context that privileges the priorities of gay men and heterosexual women living with the virus. Specifically, gay men are better positioned than heterosexual men when vying for the services and recognition of AIDS service organisations due to their social capital within these agencies, thereby benefiting by virtue of their membership with the group perceived to control the decision-making apparatuses when resource allocation and programme development are at stake. Relative to women, heterosexual men are poorly positioned due to their negative symbolic capital, derived from being perceived as the 'guilty' parties in the context of heterosexual HIV transmission. As a result, the material and support needs of women have been prioritised, while those of heterosexual men living with HIV remain largely unaddressed. CONCLUSIONS: Heterosexual men living with HIV are operating within a health and service field that has not kept pace with their increased representation among the population of persons living with the virus. Researchers, clinicians and policy makers should strive to integrate heterosexual men living with HIV in decision making and community-based research initiatives that build capacity among this group while simultaneously generating a research and policy agenda specific to the concerns of this growing demographic.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".