Needs among persons with human immunodeficiency virus and intellectual and developmental disabilities in community mental health care: a cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The experience of having human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is often associated with co-occurring mental health issues. Community mental health services are an important source of support for persons with HIV living in the community. Persons with intellectual disability (ID) are vulnerable to HIV and may have unique support needs beyond those without ID receiving community care. This study compared support needs of men with HIV in community mental health programmes, with and without ID. METHODS: The sample was composed of 138 HIV-positive men with and without ID receiving mental health case management from one community organisation in Ontario, Canada, on 31 March 2013. Staff-rated needs across 16 domains grouped into four clusters were measured using the Camberwell Assessment of Need: Basic needs (accommodation, food, public transportation, money and benefits); self-care/functional needs (looking after the home, self-care and daytime activities); health/safety needs (physical health, psychological distress, psychotic symptoms, safety to self and safety to others); and social needs (company, intimate relationships and sexual expression). Adjusted logistic regression models examined the association between ID and each need domain. RESULTS: One-quarter of the sample (n = 34/138, 24.6%) had co-occurring ID. Those with ID were more likely to have needs in the basic cluster [odds ratios: food 4.05 (1.14, 14.44), P:0.031; benefits 2.58 (1.05, 6.32), P:0.038)] and self-care/functional cluster [looking after the home (2.75 (1.17, 6.49), P:0.021); self-care (2.72 (1.18, 6.27), P:0.019)], but were less likely to have need for sexual expression: 0.35 (0.14,0.90), P:0.030) (social cluster). There were no differences in the domains in the health/safety cluster. CONCLUSION: Despite elevated cognitive needs in the basic and self-care/functional clusters for the ID group, limited other differences suggest that with moderate additional targeting, community mental health programmes for persons with HIV may be appropriate for men with ID.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".