Public Health's Response to HIV/AIDS in Ontario: A Critical Ethnography of Case Management Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV/AIDS is now widely recognized as a medically manageable condition. However, more than 2,000 new HIV infections are reported across Canada each year. A pressing issue in the public health response to HIV is how to better engage people at risk and living with the virus in testing, treatment, and support services. For this study, a critical ethnography was undertaken with 22 public health nurses involved in HIV case management in 14 public health units across Ontario. The objectives were to describe the experiences of case management nurses involved in the follow-up of people who test positive for HIV in public health units across Ontario and identify how public health policies shape the boundaries of nursing care and client outcomes in the response to HIV. A poststructuralist, feminist and critical geographical lens was employed to understand how different discourses determine the social and spatial organization of case management and structure the possibilities in nurses’ follow-up at the point-of-care. The main finding is evidence of two different sets of goals and measures in the public health response to HIV in Ontario: (1) a medical-epidemiological discourse tied to a biosecurity approach and goal of disease containment; and (2) a nursing discourse linked to a relational approach aimed at promoting meaningful engagement and ensuring people with HIV “feel supported.” The thesis of this study is that the hegemony of a biosecurity approach and singular biomedical indicator of success (an undetectable viral load) are contributing to the relegation of relational work and nurses’ efforts to support people who are unable or unwilling to engage in risk reduction measures to the margins of care. Strengthening the capacity of case management nurses to develop a relational approach and account for the diversity of emotional and social issues impacting the ability of people to live with HIV may be an important starting point for improving the outcomes of the public health response. The findings have implications for future research, policy, and practice in the areas of governmentality, public health nursing and efforts to end the “War on HIV.”
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".