MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089598911 · doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01571-1

Translation and validation of the Short HIV Stigma scale in Brazilian Portuguese

2020· article· en· W3089598911 on OpenAlexafffund
Paula M. Luz, Thiago S. Torres, Celline Cardoso Almeida-Brasil, Luana M. S. Marins, Daniel R. B. Bezerra, Valdiléa G. Veloso, Beatriz Grinsztejn, Daphna Harel, Brett D. Thombs

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFundação Oswaldo CruzConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCronbach's alphaStigma (botany)Clinical psychologySocial stigmaPsychologyBrazilian PortugueseConstruct validityMen who have sex with menConfirmatory factor analysisPolychoric correlationMedicinePsychometricsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PortuguesePsychiatryStructural equation modelingFamily medicineCorrelation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV-related stigma, or the degree to which people living with HIV endorse negative stereotypes associated with HIV, is associated with poor continuum of care outcomes. We translated the 12-item Short HIV Stigma scale and evaluated its psychometric properties in a Brazilian context with regard to construct validity and reliability. METHODS: The first step included translation, back-translation, evaluation, peer review, and pre-testing of the Short HIV Sigma scale developed by Reinius et al. (Health Qual Life Outcomes 15(1):115, 2017). The second step involved piloting the scale in three convenience samples of adults recruited online through advertisements on different platforms: Grindr (October/2019) and Hornet (February-March/2020), geospatial network apps for sexual encounters for gay, bisexuals and other men who have sex with men, and social media apps (Facebook and WhatsApp, October/2019). The psychometric evaluation included confirmatory factor analysis, differential item functioning using the Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause model, and correlations between subscale scores and antiretroviral treatment use and adherence. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and ordinal alpha and omega from the polychoric correlation matrix. RESULTS: In total, 114, 164, and 1824 participants completed the measure items through Grindr, social media, and Hornet, respectively. We confirmed a 4-factor structure with factors for personalized stigma (3 items), disclosure concerns (3 items), concerns with public attitudes (3 items), and negative self-image (3 items). Small differential item functioning with respect to sample was found for one item ("I feel guilty because I have HIV"), which did not substantively influence estimates of latent factor scores. Grindr and Hornet's participants scored significantly higher than social media participants on all factors except personalized stigma. Higher subscale scores correlated with antiretroviral treatment use among participants from Hornet and with lower treatment adherence in participants from Grindr and Hornet. Reliability as measured by Cronbach's alpha, ordinal alpha and omega were 0.83, 0.88 and 0.93 for the entire scale. DISCUSSION: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the Short HIV Stigma scale had satisfactory psychometric properties with present results suggesting that scores from different samples may be compared without concern that measurement differences substantively influence results though further studies with greater representation of women and heterosexual men are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Quality of Life OutcomesSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207