Assessing the sensibility and utility of a short-form version of the HIV Disability Questionnaire in clinical practice settings in Canada, Ireland and the USA: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The Short-Form HIV Disability Questionnaire (SF-HDQ) was developed to measure the presence, severity and episodic nature of health challenges across six domains. Our aim was to assess the sensibility, utility and implementation of the SF-HDQ in clinical practice. Design Mixed methods study design involving semistructured interviews and questionnaire administration. Participants We recruited adults living with HIV and HIV clinicians in Canada, Ireland and the USA. Methods We electronically administered the SF-HDQ followed by a Sensibility Questionnaire (face and content validity, ease of usage, format) and conducted semistructured interviews to explore the utility and implementation of the SF-HDQ in clinical practice. The threshold for sensibility was a median score of >5/7 (adults living with HIV) and>4/7 (HIV clinicians) for ≥80% of items. Qualitative interview data were analysed using directed content analysis. Results Median sensibility scores were >5 (adults living with HIV; n=29) and >4 (HIV clinicians; n=16) for 18/19 (95%) items. Interview data indicated that the SF-HDQ represents the health-related challenges of living with HIV and other concurrent health conditions; captures the daily episodic nature of HIV; and is easy to use. Clinical utility included measuring health challenges and change over time, guiding referral to specialists and services, setting goals, facilitating communication and fostering a multidisciplinary approach to care. Considerations for implementation included flexible, person-centred approaches to administration, and communicating scores based on personal preferences. Conclusions The SF-HDQ possesses sensibility and utility for use in clinical settings with adults living with HIV and HIV clinicians in three countries.
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 | 0.055 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".