ADAPTING COGNITIVE REMEDIATION GROUP THERAPY AS A HYBRID INTERVENTION FOR PEOPLE WITH HIV AND COGNITIVE CONCERNS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive impairment is a significant health issue for people aging with HIV/AIDS. With pharmacological treatment lacking, psychosocial group therapies may best help people aging with HIV and cognitive challenges cope with symptoms. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how in-person group therapies need adaptation for hybrid or online delivery. Peer-led focus groups discussed adapting cognitive remediation group therapy (CRGT) as a hybrid or online intervention. CRGT combines mindfulness-based stress reduction and brain training activities. Purposive sampling recruited people aging with HIV (40+) who self-identified cognitive concerns and resided in two Canadian provinces. Content analysis was employed on transcripts by 7 independent coders. Ten, two-hour focus groups were conducted between August and November 2022. Participant (n=45) demographics included age (M=53.22, SD=7.62) gender (45% women, 42% men, 13% trans/non-binary), sexuality (42% gay, 40% heterosexual, 18% other), ethnicity (45% white, 33% black, 13% Indigenous, 9% mixed-race), and employment (33% employed, 67% retired/disability), and all were retained in care. Overall, participants responded favourably to CRGT’s modalities and preferred a hybrid model blending in-person and online interactions. Preferred intervention facilitators were peers and mental health professionals. Knowledge of HIV’s impacts on cognitive health, including HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder, was very low despite high reports of cognitive concerns (e.g., trouble remembering, impaired attention, difficulty problem-solving). Given the aging of the HIV population in Canada and the United States, increasing support will be required to improve quality of life. This presentation will discuss a hybrid CRGT adaptation, alongside considerations for how COVID-19 has impacted intervention research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".