Canadian HIV Care Settings as Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: For people living with HIV (PLWH) using continuous antiretroviral therapy, HIV is now a complex chronic condition often managed in primary care settings. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a model to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated primary care that promotes collaboration between primary and specialist care and allied services. The study assessed how both Canadian primary and specialist HIV care settings align with the PCMH. METHODS: Mixed-methods surveys and interviews with providers in Canadian HIV care settings. RESULTS: Twenty-two settings completed the survey, 12 of which participated in follow-up interviews. Settings had a mean PCMH score of 8.06/12 (SD = 1.53), indicating the basic elements of each PCMH domain have been implemented. We found no significant differences between HIV primary care and specialist care settings. Continuous team-based healing relationships had the highest score (mean = 9.2; SD = 2.15), and quality improvement strategy had the lowest score (mean = 7.19; SD = 2.26). The themes that arose from the interviews were 1) endorsement of the domains of the PCMH by all settings, 2) organizational structures of settings located in hospitals facilitating the implementation of the PCMH through existing technology, patient advisory boards, and accessible services, and 3) dissonance between complex care needs and existing organizational structures in some settings, including limited clinic hours, lack of electronic medical records, and limited mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: HIV care in Canada is reasonably well aligned with the PCMH, irrespective of structure of settings. We propose the need for improvements in the use of electronic medical records, quality improvement strategies, and integration of mental health services to achieve better care delivery and health outcomes among PLWH in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".