Help-seeking in a context of AIDS stigma: understanding the healthcare needs of people with HIV/AIDS in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the rapid increase of HIV infection cases in China, the majority of this population have not yet accessed AIDS-related healthcare services. Most current research in China focuses on HIV prevention and disease control, and pays inadequate attention to the barriers facing HIV-infected individuals in accessing and adhering with healthcare services. This article, as part of a research project on the illness experiences of people with HIV/AIDS in China, aimed to explore these individuals' healthcare experiences, shedding light on the gaps between their needs and existing healthcare services. Data for this qualitative study were collected through individual in-depth interviews with 21 HIV-infected adults in China. The results of data analysis suggest that these individuals' healthcare experiences were greatly affected by social discrimination and the limitations of healthcare resources. While AIDS stigma has reduced the social resources available for this population, HIV-related health institutions were perceived by them as an indispensable source of social support. It is concluded that healthcare institutions, as one of the few places in which HIV-infected people are willing to disclose their HIV positive status, should incorporate social care into healthcare service development and delivery so as to facilitate this population's accessing healthcare services and to address their unmet needs that go beyond the conventional scope of health care. Improving the visibility of people with HIV/AIDS in health care will also have a long-term impact on their own well-being and on HIV prevention in China.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".