Strengths and Challenges of Implementing Physiotherapy in an HIV Community-Based Care Setting: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of People Living with HIV and Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The needs of people living with HIV (PLWH) who have access to antiretroviral therapy have shifted from hospital to community care; however, little is known about physiotherapy within HIV community-based care. Our aim was to understand strengths and challenges of implementing physiotherapy within an interprofessional HIV day health program in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Fifteen PLWH and 5 healthcare providers participated. Strengths included improved access to physiotherapy and fulfilling an unmet need for rehabilitation; a tailored approach to physiotherapy; co-location improved communication, coordination, and engagement in care; and improved health outcomes for PLWH (i.e. function, psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life). Challenges related to managing expectations; variable attendance at visits; and managing complex and diverse needs of PLWH. Results may be transferable to other community-based care settings that provide care for PLWH and complex multi-morbidity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".