HIV in MOTION: a community of practice on physical rehabilitation for and by people living with HIV and their allies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of a community of practice (CoP), HIV in MOTION (HIM), to advance physical activity rehabilitation interventions with adults living with HIV, clinicians, researchers, and representatives from community-based organizations. We attracted a diverse audience of geographically dispersed people living with HIV, clinicians, exercise personnel, and trainees to eight HIM community of practice events that featured the clinical, research, and lived experience of people living with HIV. HIV in MOTION had (a) a domain related to physical rehabilitation, exercise, and social participation for people living with HIV; (b) a community of diverse individuals; and (c) a practice, that is, a series of sustained interactions online and offline, synchronous, and asynchronous. Our team included six diverse people living with HIV, two coordinators, and three academic researchers who planned, prepared, implemented, and evaluated each online session. To evaluate the HIV in MOTION CoP, we employed an evaluation framework composed of five criteria: Goals and Scope, Context and Structure, Process and Activities, Outcomes, and Impact. We collected quantitative and qualitative evaluative data using online evaluation, audiovisual archiving, and participant observations during the debriefing with all members of our team. Results: We widened the Goals and Scope of the HIV in MOTION CoP to include the HIV narrative of lived experiences, including autopathography, and participant storytelling. In matters of Context and Structure, we received explicit satisfaction with our governance and leadership. Also, being flexible to fit online formats was a productive strategy that made the HIV in MOTION CoP sessions agile and amenable to audiovisual archiving. Our indicators of success in Process, Activities, and Outcomes included participant retention online, elicited verbal interventions and comments in the chat room, and a rate of three repeat visits online. The indicators of success of Impact were the presence of voluntary and unscripted autopathography, the patient storytelling and how it reportedly caused changes in the participants, and the "legitimate peripheral participation" of emerging research and clinical students. In conclusion, we recommend our form of CoP for mixing the knowledge of diverse persons in this area. However, we recommend considering budget and burnout as serious challenges to sustainability.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".