The Impact of Quality Assurance Initiatives and Workplace Policies and Procedures on HIV/AIDS-Related Stigma Experienced by Patients and Nurses in Regions with High Prevalence of HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma is commonly experienced by people living with HIV/AIDS and by those providing care to HIV/AIDS patients. Few intervention studies have explored the impact of workplace policies and/or quality improvement on stigma. We examine the contribution of health care workplace policies, procedures and quality assurance initiatives, and self- and peer-assessed individual nurse practices, to nurse-reported HIV/AIDS-stigma practices toward patients living with HIV/AIDS and nurses in health care settings. Our sample of survey respondents (n = 1157) included managers (n = 392) and registered/enrolled nurses (n = 765) from 29 facilities in 4 countries (South Africa, Uganda, Jamaica, Kenya). This is one of the first studies in LMIC countries to use hierarchical linear modeling to examine the contributions of organizational and individual factors to HIV/AIDS stigma. Based on our results, we argue that organizational interventions explicitly targeting HIV/AIDS stigma are required to reduce the incidence, prevalence and morbidity of HIV/AIDS.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".