Experiences of Justice-Involved People Transitioning to HIV Care in the Community After Prison Release in Lusaka, Zambia: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), incarcerated people experience a higher HIV burden than the general population. While access to HIV care and treatment for incarcerated people living with HIV (PLHIV) in SSA has improved in some cases, little is known about their transition to and post-release experience with care in the community. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study to describe factors that may influence post-release HIV care continuity in Zambia. METHODS: In March-December 2018, we recruited study participants from a larger prospective cohort study following incarcerated and newly released PLHIV at 5 correctional facilities in 2 provinces in Zambia. We interviewed 50 participants immediately before release; 27 (54%) participated in a second interview approximately 6 months post-release. Demographic and psychosocial data were collected through a structured survey. RESULTS: The pre-release setting was strongly influenced by the highly structured prison environment and assumptions about life post-release. Participants reported accessible HIV services, a destigmatizing environment, and strong informal social supports built through comradery among people facing the same trying detention conditions. Contrary to their pre-release expectations, during the immediate post-release period, participants struggled to negotiate the health system while dealing with unexpected stressors. Long-term engagement in HIV care was possible for participants with strong family support and a high level of self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights that recently released PLHIV in Zambia face acute challenges in meeting their basic subsistence needs, as well as social isolation, which can derail linkage to and retention in community HIV care. Releasees are unprepared to face these challenges due to a lack of community support services. To improve HIV care continuity in this population, new transitional care models are needed that develop client self-efficacy, facilitate health system navigation, and pragmatically address structural and psychosocial barriers like poverty, gender inequality, and substance use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".