MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224308834 · doi:10.1177/17455057221090829

Key recommendations for developing a national action plan to advance the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women living with HIV in Canada

2022· article· en· W4224308834 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Angela Kaida, Brittany Cameron, Tracey Conway, Jasmine Cotnam, Jessica Danforth, Alexandra de Pokomandy, Brenda Gagnier, Sandra Godoy, Rebecca Gormley, Saara Greene, Muluba Habanyama, Mina Kazemi, Carmen H. Logie, Mona Loutfy, Jay MacGillivray, Renée Masching, Deborah Money, Valerie Nicholson, Zoë Osborne, Neora Pick, Margarite Sánchez, Wangari Tharao, Sarah Watt, Manjulaa Narasimhan

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease ControlSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's Health In Women's HandsSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversitySt. Paul's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoWomen's Health Research InstituteCAAN Communities, Alliances & Network
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsReproductive healthReproductive rightsAction planPublic relationsParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchMedicinePolitical scienceNursingSociologyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

requires evidence-based, equity-oriented, and regionally specific strategies centred on priorities of women living with HIV. Through community-academic partnership, we identified recommendations for developing a national action plan focused on enabling environments that shape sexual and reproductive health and rights by, with, and for women living with HIV in Canada. Between 2017 and 2019, leading Canadian women's HIV community, research, and clinical organizations partnered with the World Health Organization to convene a webinar series to describe the World Health Organization Consolidated guideline, define sexual and reproductive health and rights priorities in Canada, disseminate Canadian research and best practices in sexual and reproductive health and rights, and demonstrate the importance of community-academic partnerships and meaningful engagement of women living with HIV. Four webinar topics were pursued: (1) Trauma and Violence-Aware Care/Practice; (2) Supporting Safer HIV Disclosure; (3) Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice; and (4) Resilience, Self-efficacy, and Peer Support. Subsequent in-person (2018) and online (2018-2021) consultation with > 130 key stakeholders further clarified priorities. Consultations yielded five cross-cutting key recommendations:1. Meaningfully engage women living with HIV across research, policy, and practice aimed at advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights by, with, and for all women.2. Centre Indigenous women's priorities, voices, and perspectives.3. Use language that is actively de-stigmatizing, inclusive, and reflective of women's strengths and experiences.4. Strengthen Knowledge Translation efforts to support access to and uptake of contemporary sexual and reproductive health and rights information for all stakeholders.5. Catalyse reciprocal relationships between evidence and action such that action is guided by research evidence, and research is guided by what is needed for effective action.Topic-specific sexual and reproductive health and rights recommendations were also identified. Guided by community engagement, recommendations for a national action plan on sexual and reproductive health and rights encourage Canada to enact global leadership by creating enabling environments for the health and healthcare of women living with HIV. Implementation is being pursued through consultations with provincial and national government representatives and policy-makers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207