The Effect of AIDS Stigmatization on Curing Patients and Physician- HIV/AIDS Patient Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: HIV/AIDS and its carrier are not only known as a disease and a patient, respectively. Since the transmission of the disease is most relevant to human deviant behavior, a stigma against the disease has been formed. This study seeks to examine the effect of the stigmatization the disease imposed on the treatment process and interaction between the physician and HIV/AIDS-positive patient in the Iranian society.Materials and Methods: A qualitative research method has been used in this study. Data collection has been carried out through interviews. Depth interview and semi-structured interviews have been employed for the patients and doctors respectively. This study was done in the consultation center and infectious disease ward of Imam Khomeini hospital. Six clients of the consultation center and seven infectious disease specialists were selected.Ethical Considerations: The study followed standard ethics guidelines concerning informed consent and confidentiality.Findings: HIV/AIDS-related stigma has sparked illogical fears, affects physician-patient interaction in the medical community and has led to discrimination among these patients in many cases in terms of the right to treatment.Conclusion: The results obtained showed the unfavorable impacts of the AIDS-related stigma imposed on the medical community and this is an obstacle facing patients with HIV/AIDS to achieve equal treatment rights. The results of the present study show the role of stigma in converting this disease into a socio-cultural phenomenon. Physicians, like other members of society are affected by values, norms and are constructs of society.Citation: Tavakol M. Nikayin D. Rezaei M. The Effect of AIDS Stigmatization on Curing Patients and Physician- HIV/AIDS Patient Relationship. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(1):57-63.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".