Short-Form HIV Disability Questionnaire Sensibility, Utility, and Implementation Considerations in Community-Based Settings: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed the sensibility, utility, and implementation considerations of the Short-Form HIV Disability Questionnaire (SF-HDQ) in community-based settings. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study with adults living with HIV and community providers in seven community sites in Canada. We administered the SF-HDQ, a sensibility questionnaire and conducted semi-structured interviews. The SF-HDQ was sensible if median scores were ≥5/7(adults living with HIV) and ≥4/7(community providers) for ≥80% of the sensibility questionnaire items. Qualitative interview data were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Median sensibility scores were ≥5 for adults living with HIV (n = 44) and ≥4 for community providers (n = 10) for 95% and 100% of items, respectively. The SF-HDQ is comprehensive, represented disability, captured its episodic nature, and was easy to complete. Community utility included: facilitating communication and engagement with community; taking a snapshot of disability and tracking changes over time; guiding referrals; fostering self-reflection; and informing community programs. Considerations for implementation included flexible, person-centered approaches to mode and processes of administration, and communicating scores based on personal preferences among persons living with HIV. Conclusion: The SF-HDQ possesses sensibility and utility for use in community-based settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".