Geographic differences in the experiences of HIV-related stigma for women living with HIV in northern and rural communities of Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Canada, individuals living in northern and rural regions report more barriers to health service access. For people living with HIV, these barriers may be exacerbated by experiences of HIV-related stigma, and women living with HIV can be disproportionately affected because of intersections of multiple forms of oppression, including racism, sexism and classism. To further understand the impact of geography on the wellbeing of women living with HIV, this study assessed geographic differences in HIV-related stigma experiences among women in the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual & Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS). METHODS: CHIWOS is a multisite cohort study of women living with HIV in Canada that operates under community-based participatory research methodology along with GIPA (greater involvement of people with HIV/AIDS) and MIWA (meaningful involvement of women living with HIV/AIDS) principles. This analysis compared peer research associate-administered questionnaire data between participants in northern and southern Ontario, Canada, and between participants in rural and non-rural Ontario. Northern regions were defined by healthcare delivery jurisdiction. The primary outcome was the 10-item shortened HIV Stigma Scale score. Multivariable linear regression models assessed the association between rural and northern regions and stigma score. RESULTS: Sixteen women were excluded due to incomplete HIV Stigma Scale data. Of 701 women included in the analysis, 66 (9.4%) were from northern regions and 24 (3.4%) were from rural regions. Mean stigma scores were 23.9 (standard deviation (SD) 8.0) overall, 26.7 (SD 8.8) in northern regions, 23.6 (SD 7.9) in southern regions, 28.3 (SD 10.1) in rural regions, and 23.8 (SD 7.8) in non-rural regions. In multivariable analyses, northern and rural regions of residence were associated with a 3.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77, 5.32) and 4.83 (95% CI: 1.37, 8.28) point increase in stigma score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Living in both northern and rural regions of Ontario was associated with higher HIV Stigma Scale scores. These geographic discrepancies in experiences of HIV-related stigma highlight the need for region-specific programs to reduce HIV-related stigma and to support people living with HIV who are affected by HIV-related stigma, particularly those living in geographically isolated regions. Prior qualitative studies have documented the important impact of HIV-related stigma, and this study supports these observations with quantitative data from a population that is often under-represented in HIV research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".