Adoption of the chronic care model to improve HIV care: in a marginalized, largely aboriginal population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of implementing the chronic care model (CCM) in improving HIV clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Multisite, prospective, interventional cohort study. SETTING: Two urban community health centres in Vancouver and Prince George, BC. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred sixty-nine HIV-positive patients (18 years of age or older) who received primary care at either of the study sites. INTERVENTION: Systematic implementation of the CCM during an 18-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Documented pneumococcal vaccination, documented syphilis screening, documented tuberculosis screening, antiretroviral treatment (ART) status, ART status with undetectable viral load, CD4 cell count of less than 200 cells/mL, and CD4 cell count of less than 200 cells/mL while not taking ART compared during a 36-month period. RESULTS: Overall, 35% of participants were women and 59% were aboriginal persons. The mean age was 45 years and most participants had a history of injection drug use that was the presumed route of HIV transmission. During the study follow-up period, 39 people died, and 11 transferred to alternate care providers. Compared with their baseline clinical status, study participants showed statistically significant (P < .001 for all) increases in pneumococcal immunization (54% vs 84%), syphilis screening (56% vs 91%), tuberculosis screening (23% vs 38%), and antiretroviral uptake (47% vs 77%), as well as increased viral load suppression rates among those receiving ART (72% vs 90%). Stable housing at baseline was associated with a 4-fold increased probability of survival. Aboriginal ethnicity was not associated with better or worse outcomes at baseline or at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Application of the CCM approach to HIV care in a marginalized, largely aboriginal patient population led to improved disease screening, immunization, ART uptake, and virologic suppression rates. In addition to addressing underlying social determinants of health, a paradigm shift away from an "infectious disease" approach to a "chronic disease management" approach to HIV care for marginalized populations is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".