Coping Strategies of Caregivers of HIV/AIDS Orphans in Ward 15 Bikita District, Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate the coping strategies of caregivers of HIV/AIDS orphans. Methods: A descriptive study design was used with a convenience sample of 30 orphan caregivers in Bikita province ward 15, Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Permission to carry out the study was obtained from the respective ethical review boards. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Data was collected using face to face interviews following a structured questionnaire. Results: The main findings were that 73.3% of the respondents were elderly caregivers and that there were more widows 20 (66%) than married caregivers, 8 (27%). Being old meant that these caregivers needed to be taken care of themselves. They needed additional information on caring for the young nowadays which is different to what they experienced. About 24 (80%) caregivers had financial problems yet all the caregivers needs require money. Conclusions: Growing of vegetables, maize and selling any surplus was the main coping strategy of orphan caregivers. The main coping strategy is working of the orphan caregivers; however there is need of providing vocational skills and income generating projects by the authorities in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".