Protective Factors That Foster Resilience to HIV/AIDS: Insights and Lived Experiences of Older Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) have been disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS health disparities. Research showed that resilience to HIV/AIDS is associated with increased use of relevant health services, lower sexual health risks, and improved mental health outcomes among racially and ethnically diverse gbMSM. As the subpopulation that has historically been impacted by HIV/AIDS the longest, older gbMSM living with HIV/AIDS have inarguably exhibited resilience to HIV/AIDS the most. The qualitative study described in this paper sought to identify and examine protective factors that fostered resilience to HIV/AIDS based on the insights and lived experiences of racially and ethnically diverse, older gbMSM. Applying a community-based participatory research approach that included the meaningful involvement of older gbMSM living with HIV/AIDS in different roles (i.e., advisory committee member, collaborator, peer researcher, and participant), the study recruited and included forty-one older gbMSM living with HIV/AIDS from Ontario, Canada, in confidential, semi-structured interviews. Utilizing thematic analysis, we identified three major themes from the participant interviews as factors that fostered the resilience of older gbMSM to HIV/AIDS and helped to address HIV/AIDS health disparities: (1) established protective factors, (2) behavioral protective factors, and (3) controversial protective factors. This paper argues for the importance of valuing and capitalizing on these protective factors in the conceptualization and development of interventions, services, and programs that are dedicated to fostering resilience to HIV/AIDS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".