The Role of Gender Power Imbalances in the Spread of HIV among Women in Intimate Relationships: Guidelines for Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender power imbalances and HIV are concerns that affect women globally. Social workers are ethically committed to help people affected with HIV and thereby promote gender equality. Although the literature has documented the nexus between gender imbalances and HIV, scant research explores these problems concurrently within the social work profession. Drawing on the resource theory and gender and power theory, this article undertook a qualitative exploratory to gain insights into women's perspectives on gender power imbalances as a risk factor for HIV transmission in rural communities of Ngaka Modiri Molema District, North West Province. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants while data was collected through semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrate that unequal power relations between men and women in intimate relationships negatively affect women’s lives in diverse ways. This gendered impact of HIV infections for women remains intact due to the rooted gender norms that limit their ability to protect themselves against risky sexual behavior by their male partners. Disclosure of one's status remains a complex stigma attached to HIV. Social work empowerment interventions that seek to enhance equality in intimate relationships are recommended.
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 | 0.087 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".