The impact of HIV-related stigma on older and younger adults living with HIV disease: does age matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the independent influence of age on levels of HIV-related stigma experienced by adults living with HIV/AIDS. To accomplish this, cross-sectional data from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study were used to determine whether older age is associated with overall stigma among HIV-positive adults living in Ontario, Canada (n = 960). The relationship was also tested for enacted, anticipated, and internalized stigma. Covariates included sociodemographic (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, race) and psychosocial variables (e.g., depression). Modifying effects of covariates were also investigated. Those 55 and older have significantly lower overall and internalized stigma than adults under age 40, even when accounting for gender, sexual orientation, income, time since diagnosis, depression, maladaptive coping, and social support. Age does not predict enacted or Anticipated Stigma when accounting for the demographic and psychosocial variables. A significant interaction between depression and age suggests that stigma declines with age among those who are depressed but increases to age 50 and then decreases in older age groups among those who are not depressed. Age matters when it comes to understanding stigma among adults living with HIV/AIDS; however, the relationship between age and stigma is complex, varying according to stigma type and depression level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".