MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589147309 · doi:10.1353/hpu.2017.0017

Housing and Health Outcomes of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs) in the Lower Manya Krobo District, Ghana

2017· article· en· W2589147309 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric Y. Tenkorang, Adobea Yaa Owusu, Amos Laar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)InequalityPhysical healthEnvironmental healthDeveloping countryPsychological healthMedicineGerontologyPsychologySocioeconomicsEconomic growthMental healthSociologyClinical psychologyEconomicsFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although emerging in Western industrialized societies, limited research exists on the links between housing and health outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODS: Using survey data collected from 605 PLWHAs in the Lower Manya Krobo district of Ghana, this paper examined the effects of housing structure, arrangements, accessibility and conditions on the physical and psychological/emotional health of respondents. RESULTS: Results indicate that housing variables have independent effects on health outcomes, controlling for socio-economic and demographic variables. Respondents living in poor housing structures and deplorable housing conditions had poorer physical and psychological health scores. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that it is relevant to think about houses occupied by PLWHAs as important sources of health inequality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Care for the Poor and UnderservedSame topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207