Dissemination of the Women-Centred HIV Care Model: A Multimodal Process and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using data from a national cohort study and focus groups, the Women-Centred HIV Care (WCHC) Model was developed to inform care delivery for women living with HIV. METHODS: Through an evidence-based, integrated knowledge translation approach, we developed 2 toolkits based on the WCHC Model for service providers and women living with HIV in English and French (Canada's national languages). To disseminate, we distributed printed advertising materials, hosted 3 national webinars and conducted 2 virtual capacity-building training series. RESULTS: A total of 315 individuals attended the webinars, and the average WCHC knowledge increased by 29% (SD 4.3%). In total, 131 service providers engaged in 22 virtual capacity-building training sessions with 21 clinical cases discussed. Learners self-reported increased confidence in 15/15 abilities, including the ability to provide WCHC. As of December 2023, the toolkits were downloaded 7766 times. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed WCHC toolkits and shared them with diverse clinical and community audiences through various dissemination methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".