Use of Living Strategies among Adults Aging with HIV in Canada: Comparison by Age-Group Using Data from the HIV, Health and Rehabilitation Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the type and frequency of living strategies used by adults living with HIV. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey that included 51 living strategies: maintaining sense of control, attitudes and beliefs, blocking HIV out of the mind, and social interaction. We examined the frequency of use and compared the proportion of respondents who engaged in strategies across 3 age-groups (<40 years, 40-49 years, and ≥50 years). RESULTS: Of the 935 participants, the majority were men (79%) and most (≥60%) engaged "most" or "all of the time" in healthy lifestyle strategies and maintained a positive outlook living with HIV. Compared to younger participants, a higher proportion of older adults (≥50 years) engaged "most" or "all the time" in strategies that involved maintaining control over health and adopting positive attitudes and outlook living with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can help to inform the role of self-management to enhance successful aging with HIV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".