MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306924565 · doi:10.1037/sah0000414

What do we know about interventions to reduce intersectional stigma and discrimination in the context of HIV? A systematic review.

2022· article· en· W4306924565 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Stangl, Kaitlyn Atkins, Anna M. Leddy, Kirsty Sievwright, Jae Sevelius, Sheri A. Lippman, Maria Amélia de Sousa Mascena Veras, Sophia Zamudio‐Haas, M. Kumi Smith, John E. Pachankis, Carmen H. Logie, Deepa Rao, Sheri D. Weiser, Laura Nyblade

Bibliographic record

VenueStigma and Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
KeywordsStigma (botany)Psychological interventionPsychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Context (archaeology)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyMedicinePsychiatryHistoryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is ample literature on interventions to reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) stigma and discrimination and extant theory around intersectionality. However, the integration of intersectionality into the design and implementation of stigma reduction interventions is nascent. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we reviewed 23 studies from six countries to examine the state of the evidence on interventions to reduce intersectional stigma in the context of HIV. Thirteen studies made explicit reference to intersectionality, 11 of which addressed all three stigma domains: drivers, facilitators, and manifestations. Most interventions were multilevel and multistrategy, yet only five included a structural component. Thirteen studies focused on four or more intersections (e.g., HIV, race, sexual identity, gender), five on three intersections, and five on two intersections. Twenty studies (87%) reported medium (n = 5) to high (n = 15) community engagement. The majority of studies (19/23) assessed HIV-related (e.g., antiretroviral therapy [ART] adherence) and/or empowerment-based outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, coping), with 91% reporting some positive intervention effects. Of 13 studies that measured stigma outcomes, only seven (54%) documented some improvement in the stigma measures assessed. Our review revealed a range of sophisticated, intersectionality-informed interventions that were mostly successful at improving HIV, sexual health, and empowerment-based outcomes, but less successful at reducing the aspects of stigma measured. Future research should encompass wider geographical regions, use validated measures of intersectional stigma, and test structural interventions and approaches that challenge the systems of power and oppression that fuel stigma, inequality, and poor health outcomes among multiply marginalized populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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