Developing a performance framework for measuring comprehensive, community-based primary healthcare for people with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are living longer lives and like many other patients, need a health system better adapted for the management of complex chronic conditions. A key element of system transformation is measuring and reporting on system performance indicators relevant to the different stakeholders. Our objective was to produce a performance measurement framework for assessing the quality of comprehensive community-based primary healthcare for people with HIV. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with HIV providers, advocates, and policy-makers to obtain input on a draft performance framework, constructed using existing HIV-specific indicators, as well as the use of performance data in improving care for people with HIV. RESULTS: Stakeholders were overwhelmingly supportive of the framework's comprehensiveness. Many noted the absence of indicators addressing social determinants of health and had mixed opinions on the importance of indicators addressing access to after-hours care and the frequency of routine screening for behavioural risk factors. The draft framework was modified to reflect stakeholder input, triangulated against expert opinion and recently released HIV care guidelines, and finalized at 79 indicators. The resources and infrastructure to collect and use performance data will have to be improved for performance measurement to contribute to improving care for people with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: This framework presents a comprehensive though not exhaustive tool to support performance measurement and improvement in the care for people with HIV. However, advances in data collection and use across the system will be needed to support performance measurement driving quality improvement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".