“We document everything”: Interpretations of HIPAA and their impact on ASO staff charting practices in the context of HIV criminalization in the state of Georgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract
 Introduction: The growing professionalization of AIDS Service Organizations (ASO) and the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure have reshaped both ASO staff interactions with people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) as well as ASO staff charting practices.
 
 Methods: Building on a recent national research project in Canada, we conducted semi-structured interviews in February-April 2017 with N=12 ASO staff in Atlanta, Georgia to investigate their charting practices in the context of HIV criminalization.
 
 Results: Our data showed no variation between professionalized and peer ASO staff in terms of charting practices, although the American participants reported being less protective about the content of their notes and less concerned about the risk their notes may pose in cases involving the criminal prosecution of an alleged HIV nondisclosure incident than was previously reported by their Canadian counterparts. In fact, we identified a false sense of security among American ASO staff stemming from their belief that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) would protect them from having to disclose their charting notes.
 Conclusions: We suggest that training and educational opportunities for both professionalized and peer ASO staff are needed to sensitize them to the implications of record-keeping on the prosecution of HIV nondisclosure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".