MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396906437 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075194

Understanding the impact of a residential housing program for people living with HIV/AIDS: results from a realist evaluation

2024· article· en· W4396906437 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anum Ali, Gary Groot, Melissa April, Maura MacPhee, Stephanie Witham, Hubert Tote Alimezelli, Tracey Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePublic healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)EpidemiologyGerontologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, the Public Health Agency surveillance of new HIV cases has demonstrated annual increasing rates since 2020. The rates of new HIV cases are highest in the province of Saskatchewan. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the project was to conduct a resident-oriented realist evaluation of an innovative supportive housing programme, Sanctum, for people living with HIV/AIDS who also face social care issues, such as homelessness. This project took place in Saskatchewan, a province that is seeking innovative approaches to improve quality of life and HIV/AIDS management for its citizens. Our evaluation addressed how and why participants were successful (or not) within the Sanctum programme. DESIGN AND SETTING: Sanctum is a housing programme located in an inner-city location within the province of Saskatchewan. A unique component of this evaluation was the inclusion of an individual with lived experience, a resident partner, as a member of the research team. PARTICIPANTS: 11 recent Sanctum graduates, seven men and four women, were recruited for client partner-led in-depth, semistructured interviews. INTERVENTIONS: Prior to the evaluation, we developed a realist programme theory with potential causal explanations, known as context-mechanism-outcomes (CMO) configurations. Interview data from the evaluation and ongoing discussions with Sanctum board members and our resident partner were used to test, refine and validate the final programme theory and CMO configurations. RESULTS: CMO configurations at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) and macro (community) levels complement the over-arching programme theory. Key findings were the importance of Sanctum's harm reduction philosophy, accompanied by a non-judgmental and patient-oriented approach. Participants were supported to reduce risky behaviour, improve self-care management and develop healthier relationships within a 'safe' home-like setting. Underlying mechanisms that contributed to participants' success in the programme included: intrinsic motivation, self-worth, belongingness, empowerment and self-efficacy. Evidence-informed recommendations are offered to support Sanctum-like programme development for individuals with holistic health needs related to HIV/AIDS diagnoses and lack of access to necessary social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma associated with HIV/AIDS and living circumstances, such as homelessness, were successfully addressed using harm reduction principles and judgement-free approaches within a family-like environment.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→