P141 Factors associated with HIV-related stigma among individuals accessing antiretroviral therapy in british columbia, canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite public health messaging that antiretroviral therapy (ART) has improved health outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH) and is effective in preventing HIV transmission, many PLWH continue to experience HIV-related stigma. It is critical to assess HIV-related stigma experienced by PLWH accessing ART in the modern HIV treatment era. Methods The STOP HIV/AIDS Program Evaluation (SHAPE) study is a longitudinal cohort of PLWH ≥19 years of age in British Columbia, Canada. This cross-sectional analysis uses SHAPE baseline survey data (collected January 2016-August 2018) and linked clinical registry data to examine factors associated with HIV-related stigma among individuals accessing ART. HIV-related stigma was self-reported using the ten-item Berger HIV stigma scale. Multivariable linear regression quantified the relationship between key explanatory variables and stigma. Results Among 627 participants, 136(22%) identified as women, 326(52%) were aged ≥50 at enrolment, 374(60%) identified as men who have sex with men, and 133(21%) self-reported Indigenous ethnicity. The median stigma score was 47.5 (Q1-Q3: 32.5-62.5; range: 0-100). In the multivariable model, reporting injection drug use (IDU) in the past year (β=4.54, 95%CI= 0.23,8.86) or selecting prefer not to answer when asked about IDU history (β=9.52, 95%CI= 4.77,14.28); experiences of lifetime violence (β=7.62, 95%CI= 3.67,11.56); and having a mental health disorder diagnosis (β=5.30, 95%CI= 1.88, 8.73) were associated with higher stigma scores. Higher stigma scores were also associated with being 40-49 years old (β= 6.21, 95%CI= 1.58,10.85) compared to <40; age ≥50 had no significant association. Living in a city with a population ≥100,000 (β=-4.66, 95%CI= -8.53,-0.78) was associated with lower stigma scores. Conclusion Age, city size, IDU experience, violence, and mental illness were independently associated with HIV-related stigma. These findings provide support for an intersectional investigation into how these factors propagate stigma and how this experience impacts the health and wellbeing of PLWH in this setting. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".