“It’s a Hidden Issue”: Exploring the experiences of women with HIV-associated neurocognitive challenges using a disability framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To use the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to explore the experiences of women living with self-identified HIV-associated neurocognitive challenges. Method: This interpretive, qualitative study involved key informant interviews with 16 women with self-identified HIV-associated neurocognitive challenges. Data were collected through 60–90 min, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach. Theoretical analysis then used the ICF to reconceptualize the data using a disability lens. Results: Participants perceived impairments (e.g. memory loss, difficulty multi-tasking) and participation restrictions (e.g. parenting, work roles) resulting from their neurocognitive challenges as having a larger impact on their daily lives than activity limitations (e.g. difficulty with chores). Participants held contrasting views about parenting: women with children drew strength from parenting whereas women without children worried that parenting could compromise their health. Participation in work and volunteering roles was viewed as integral to managing neurocognitive challenges and health overall. Conclusions: Conceptualizing neurocognitive challenges through a disability lens focuses attention on how impairments interact with other realities in these women’s lives. This exploratory study reveals the need for future research exploring perceptions among people living with HIV-associated neurocognitive challenges with attention to aging and among other vulnerable groups.Implications for RehabilitationFor people who can access treatment, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is experienced as a chronic illness.HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder is one of the comorbidities with a high-prevalence rate that can impact quality of life and everyday functioning.This study reveals that impairments experienced by women with HIV-associated neurocognitive challenges are linked with a range of participation restrictions.These restrictions need addressing through rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".