Quality of life of older women living with HIV: comparative assessment of physical and mental health-related markers using a large Canadian Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed and compared physical and mental health components of quality of life (QoL) for older and younger women living with HIV (WLWH).Method: Using survey data from the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study, demographic, well-being, and physical and mental health-related QoL (HR-QoL) variables were compared between older (≥50 years) and younger (<50 years) WLWH. As the only significantly different QoL component, bivariate analyses and linear regression were used to assess factors associated with physical HR-QoL of older women.Results: The sample frame comprised 1,422 women (28.0% older women). Younger WLWH’s mean age was 37.8 years (SD = 7.4) compared to older WLWH (55.8 years, SD = 5.3). Compared to younger WLWH, older WLWH had poorer physical HR-QoL (40.0 vs. 50.7; p < 0.001) but similar mental HR-QoL (42.7 vs. 42.1; p > 0.001). Older WLWH had lower social support (p < 0.001) with no significant differences in depressive symptoms or resilience. Resilience was associated with improved physical HR-QOL. Food insecurity, poorer mental HR-QoL and depressive symptoms were associated with poorer physical health.Discussion: Compared to younger WLWH, older WLWH had poorer physical HR-QoL, which was associated with resilience, food insecurity and mental health factors, highlighting the complex interactions of health-related social-ecological factors impacting aging WLWH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".