How food support improves mental health among people living with HIV: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is associated with poor mental health among people living with HIV (PLHIV). This qualitative study explored the mental health experiences of PLHIV participating in a medically appropriate food support program. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted post-intervention (n = 34). Interview topics included changes, or lack thereof, in mental health and reasons for changes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and double-coded. Salient themes were identified using an inductive-deductive method. RESULTS: Positive changes in mental health self-reported by PLHIV included improved mood and reduced stress, worry, and anxiety. Participants attributed these changes to: 1) increased access to sufficient and nutritious foods, 2) increased social support, 3) reduced financial hardship, 4) increased sense of control and self-esteem, and 5) reduced functional barriers to eating. CONCLUSIONS: Medically appropriate food support may improve mental health for some PLHIV. Further work is needed to understand and prevent possible adverse consequences on mental health after programs end.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".