A Focus on Aging, HIV/AIDS, and Neurocognitive Challenges: Examining Southern Nevada HIV Sector Providers’ Awareness and Prospective Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although abundant research has been carried out to investigate the underlying mechanisms that may cause neurocognitive challenges among middle-aged and older people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), to monitor the prevalence rates of HIV-related neurocognitive deficits, and to identify factors related to the improvement of diagnostic screening tools, classification and nosology, and clinical and rehabilitative treatment of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND); to date, there have been only a few studies that have explored and examined the awareness and work experiences HIV sector healthcare and service providers have related to HAND. To address this research gap, we conducted a qualitative, community-based participatory research study and interviewed 12 HIV sector providers in Southern Nevada, USA, from January to April 2022. After performing a thematic analysis of our interviews, we were able to identify two major themes and several sub-themes. Under our first major theme, provider awareness and knowledge, we identified four sub-themes: (1) prior knowledge and current awareness; (2) lived experiences of patients and clients with neurocognitive challenges; (3) lack of knowledge as a barrier to providing needed care; and (4) continuing education and professional development. Under our second major theme, prospective provider roles, we identified three sub-themes: (1) early detection; (2) direct and practical support; and (3) appropriate and timely referrals. In this article, we discuss our findings and lessons learned from our study, as well as their implications for the future work of researchers and providers in the HIV sector related to improving care and support for people aging with HIV/AIDS and experiencing neurocognitive challenges.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".