La relation patient-médecin : une théorisation ancrée de l’expérience des effets secondaires des antirétroviraux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antivirals induce many significant side effects and reduce the quality of life for People Living with HIV (PLWHIV). The management of side effects is crucial to maintain the patient's quality of life and adherence to treatments. The patient-physician relation is essential when managing side effects as it influences the experience for the PLWHIV. This grounded theory analyzes the patient-physician relationship in context with side effects. In the greater Ottawa/Gatineau area, 50 PLWHIV have participated in a semi-structured interview to share their experience with side effects. Four categories were highlighted with this analysis : healthcare model, medical power (central category), strategies and impacts. Results show that physicians are in a monopoly position when taking charge of PLWHIV, who then develop mechanisms of selfpreservation against medical authority. Patients must also develop their own strategies to overcome side effects. Nevertheless, a conflictual relation between patient and physicians may cause multiple devastating effects for the PLWHIV (isolation, withdrawal and distress).
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".