A Service Delivery Model for Addressing Activity and Social Participation Needs of People Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occupational therapy can contribute to the health and well-being of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who are experiencing health consequences of living long term with this disease. However, there are no comprehensive rehabilitation service delivery models to guide this emerging area of practice. The purpose of this study was to obtain critical feedback about a service delivery model to address the activity and social participation needs of people living with HIV. Method: We developed a service delivery model from a synthesis of the literature. Using a qualitative research design, we conducted individual and focus group interviews with 35 informants from diverse backgrounds and involvement in HIV-related research, service provision, and policymaking to provide critical feedback about the model. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive qualitative methods. Results: The informants identified the strengths and limitations of the model and supports and barriers to its implementation. They highlighted the importance of principle-based services, increasing resources for service navigation, building capacity of rehabilitation services to address the needs of people with HIV, and increasing research and program evaluation targeted to achieving activity and social participation outcomes. Conclusions: The model provides a framework for occupational therapists to design and evaluate services for this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".