MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393965834 · doi:10.32920/25438285.v1

Health-related quality-of-life and receipt of women-centered HIV care among women living with HIV in Canada

2024· preprint· en· W4393965834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Carter, Mona Loutfy, Alexandra de Pokomandy, Guillaume Colley, Wendy Zhang, Paul Sereda, Nadia O’Brien, Karène Proulx‐Boucher, Valerie Nicholson, Kerrigan Beaver, Angela Kaida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Health careGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychologyFamily medicineNursingBusinessEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the SF-12 among women living with HIV (WLWH) in Canada between August 2013 and May 2015. We investigated differences by perceived receipt of women-centered HIV care (WCHC), assessed using an evidence-based definition with a 5-point Likert item: "Overall, I think that the care I have received from my HIV clinic in the last year has been women-centered" (dichotomized into agree vs. disagree/neutral). Of 1308 participants, 26.3 percent were from British Columbia, 48.2 percent from Ontario, and 25.5 percent from Québec. The median age was 43 years (interquartile range = 36-51). Most (42.2 percent) were White, 29.4 percent African/Caribbean/Black, and 21.0 percent Indigenous. Overall, 53.4 percent perceived having received WCHC. Mean physical and mental HRQOL scores were 43.8 (standard deviation [SD] = 14.4) and 41.7 (SD = 14.2), respectively. Women perceiving having received WCHC had higher mean physical (44.7; SD = 14.0) and mental (43.7; SD = 14.1) HRQOL scores than those not perceiving having received WCHC (42.9; SD = 14.8 and 39.5; SD = 14.0, respectively; p < .001). In multivariable linear regression, perceived WCHC was associated with higher mental (β = 3.48; 95 percent confidence interval: 1.90, 5.06) but not physical HRQOL. Improving HRQOL among Canadian WLWH, which was lower than general population estimates, is needed, including examining the potential of WCHC as an effective model of clinical care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→