Healthcare system action on employment as a social determinant of health in people living with HIV: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Employment is a key social determinant of health. People living with HIV (PLWH) have higher unemployment rates than the general population. Vocational rehabilitation services have been shown to have significant and positive impact on employment status for PLWH. Understanding whether integrating vocational rehabilitation with health care services is acceptable, from the perspectives of PLWH and their health care providers, is an area that is understudied. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study and collected data from focus groups and interviews to understand the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the potential for vocational rehabilitation and health care integration. We completed five focus groups with 45 health care providers and one-to-one interviews with 23 PLWHs. Participants were sampled from infectious disease, primary care clinics, and AIDS Service Organizations in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of the transcripts. FINDINGS: We found health care providers have little experience assisting patients with employment and PLWH had little experience receiving employment interventions from their health care team. This lack of integration between health care and vocational services was related to uncertainties around drug coverage, physician role and living with an episodic disability. Health care providers thought that there is potential for a larger role for health care clinics in providing employment interventions for PLWH however patients were divided. Some PLWH suggest that health care providers could provide advice on the disclosure of status, work limitations and act as advocates with employers. INTERPRETATION: Health care providers and some PLWH recognize the importance of integrating health services with vocational services but both groups have little experience with implementing these types of interventions. Thus, there needs to be more study of such interventions, including the processes entailed and outcomes they aim to achieve.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".