“I’m Just Forgetting and I Don’t Know Why”: Exploring How People Living With HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder View, Manage, and Obtain Support for Their Cognitive Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) is common, but the lived experience of HAND is not well-understood. In this descriptive qualitative study, we explored how adults with HAND view, manage, and obtain support for cognitive difficulties. We interviewed 25 participants (20% female; median age = 51 years) who were diagnosed with HAND using neuropsychological assessment and a clinical interview. Semistructured interviews, co-developed with community members living with HIV, focused on how cognitive difficulties manifested and progressed, impacted well-being, and were discussed with others. We analyzed interview transcripts using a team-based, thematic approach. Participants described concentration, memory, and multitasking difficulties that fluctuated over time, as well as potential risk factors, management strategies, and psychosocial consequences. They reported they seldom discussed cognitive impairment with health care professionals, and that receiving a HAND diagnosis was validating, informative, yet somewhat disconcerting. Conversations between health care professionals and people living with HIV about HAND may provide opportunities for education, assessment, and support.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".