Opening doors: A thematic analysis of the long-term impact of community-based research in the field of HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals, including nurses, have been identified as a source of stigma for persons living with HIV (PLWH). Stigma towards PLWH may be predicated on the lack of basic education about HIV in pre-licensure nursing curricular, few opportunities for continuing education in HIV, and persistent discriminatory attitudes about HIV among nurses. From 2011 to 2013, in collaboration with the Canadian Association for Nurses in AIDS Care (CANAC), we developed and implemented a community-based intervention research project entitled A clinical mentorship model for Canadian nurses in HIV care. In previous publications, we reflected on the process, strengths and challenges of conducting this community-based research (CBR) study and we documented the improved knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses. Five years after the completion of our CBR study, we re-engaged with some of the participants, with the purpose of assessing whether outcomes had been sustained. We interviewed 15 of the original 56 participants. The data analysis was carried out using thematic analysis. In the current paper we highlight the themes of project design, in particular the CBR design, capacity building and relationships that emerged in our follow-up study. Overall participants looked back on their involvement in the mentorship project as a very positive experience that had opened new, unexpected doors. The participants described many areas of personal and professional growth as a result of their participation. Despite a period of more than five years since the completion of the initial CBR study, the community-based participatory design, the inclusion of PLWH as mentors, and the focus on experiential learning, were seen as fundamental to sustaining the long-term positive impact.
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 | 0.080 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".