Examining the Utility of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) in Clinical Practice: Perspectives of People Living with HIV and Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to examine the utility of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in clinical practice from the perspectives of people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthcare providers. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Fifteen PLWH and five healthcare providers participated in an interview, of which ten PLWH participated in a follow-up focus group discussion. The HDQ has value in clinical practice, including its role in assessing disability, facilitating communication, tailoring treatments, and guiding referrals. Strengths of the HDQ included its comprehensiveness, relevance of domains, and importance of specific items. Concerns related to length of the HDQ, the potential for some items to trigger emotional response, and negative connotations with the term 'disability.' Recommendations for HDQ implementation included the importance of score interpretability, shortening the questionnaire, and tailoring administration to the individual. Results suggest the HDQ possesses clinical utility with PLWH and healthcare providers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".