Self-management interventions for people living with human immunodeficiency virus: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-management is an important emerging intervention for people with human immunodeficiency virus (PHAs). The principles of self-management are consistent with the principles of client-centred occupational therapy. PURPOSE: This scoping review addressed three questions about self-management interventions for PHAs: (a) What knowledge, skills, and attitudes are taught? (b) What outcomes are intended? (c) What are the participation experiences of PHAs? METHOD: Questions were searched in six databases. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts and articles before inclusion. Extracted data were iteratively themed. FINDINGS: Thirty-five articles were included. Interventions taught self-care, interpersonal skills, technical knowledge, cognitive skills, positive attitudes, planning for the future, and role management. Outcomes included well-being, health and illness management, and health services use. Participation experiences reflected social experiences, needs of PHAs, specific needs of women, participation, empowerment, intervention importance, and experiences with service delivery. IMPLICATIONS: Self-management interventions are a promising approach for occupational therapists to enable PHAs' occupational performance goals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".