Clients Input Improves Satisfaction on HIV and AIDS Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: AIDS Vancouver is a donor funded non-profit organization that supports people living with HIV and AIDS (PLWHA). Like many health providers there is need to look for effective less costly methods of not only delivering services but improve the quality and coverage as well. Literature indicates that the participation of clients is an effective low-cost method of improving service. PLWHA are reluctant to participate in client input initiatives because of negative reactions in society to their condition. Innovative methods to engage clients need to be utilized.Methods: An initial survey was conducted to determine the base satisfaction level. The survey also indicated areas for improvement. Consultation sessions were conducted with clients, volunteers and staff on which issues to tackle and how. This process has been repeated for three consecutive years. Appreciative Inquiry (AI)and Social Constructivism (SC) theories were selected as guidelines on client engagement. AI was selected to encourage participants to use the strengths and resources around them to improve the program. Social Constructivism was selected for its ability to combine individual perspectives in constructing meaning that is acceptable to all participants.Results: Annual surveys have become a useful tool to determine the client satisfaction level on the program. They have also highlighted the dynamic issues related to supporting our clients. The follow-up consultation sessions have generated 41 proposals of which 26 have been implemented successfully. Client satisfaction is up, client participation in running the program continues to grow. The cost implications are minimal, yet the benefits are significant. Client participation raised program satisfaction level by 16 percentage points after one year and has maintained the satisfaction level high in two consecutive years.Conclusions: Client participation was essential in improving the satisfaction level of the program. It was important to create the space for clients to participate and also build trust with clients. Clients have a lot of knowledge about their conditions and provide valuable input. Their contribution is mainly on social aspects rather than technical aspects. These social aspects are essential in improving the client experience and need to be included in improvement initiatives.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".