MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P-165 Association between emotional reactivity and internalized Stigma among People Living with HIV

2024· article· en· W4400454191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valentina Massaroni, Valentina Delle Donne, PF Salvo, Valentina Iannone, RA Passerotto, Francesco Lamanna, RJ Stainer, A. Carbone, Carlo Torti, Gianmaria Baldin

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Stigma (botany)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologyReactivity (psychology)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Empathy is an important component of social cognition. It allows one to understand and adapt to the emotions of others and to enact prosocial behaviours. People living with HIV (PLWH) would tend to limit social relationships because of their illness, and that could be one of the causes of mood disorders and decline in quality of life. Social avoidance would arise from HIV-related internalized stigma. This type of stigma refers to how PLWH perceives the degree of acceptance by society and how they identify with negative perceptions due to them HIV. The objective of the following study was to assess an association between the ability to feel empathy and the degree of internalized stigma in our patients. Material and Methods This study assessed empathy in a sample of 70 PLWH with the use of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). IRI consists of four subscales: Perspective Taking (PT); Fantasy (F); Empathic Concern (EC); Personal Distress (PD). Cognitive domains were screened through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Stigma was assessed through the 12-item HIV Stigma Scale (HSS-12). Exclusion criteria were age <18 years and difficulties with the Italian language. Results Many of PLWH were male (91.4%, n=64), aged 46 to 55 (37.1%, n=26), with upper secondary school degree (58.6%, n=41). Most of the PLWH (68.6%, n=48) were >10 years ago diagnosed with HIV and 55.7% (n=39) of them received >10 years ago for the first time ART. The mean obtained in MoCA is 26.51 (SD 2.90). Women living with HIV (WLWH) had higher scores in PT and EC subscales (p=0.004; p=<0.001, respectively). PLWH in therapy for less time reported higher scores in PT subscale (p=<0.001). PLWH in therapy for the longest time reported higher scores in F subscale (p=0.030). PLWH with higher stigma scale scores had higher scores in PD and PT subscales (p=0.001; p=0.002, respectively). A high score in PD subscale was positively associated with high MOCA score (β 0.11; 95% CI 0.01/0.20; p=0.028). There was a positive correlation between MIST and PD subscale (r=.326; p=0.006). Conclusions Our results showed that WLWH more likely than Men living with HIV (MLWH) to report feeling empathy for those suffering. Patients on therapy for less time would tend to put themselves in the shoes of others, and those in therapy for the longest time have a richer imaginative world. High internalized stigma was associated with the ability to put oneself in others’ psychological point of view and personal distress. Cognitive resources were associated with the use of coping strategies in personal distress. Combating stigma turns out to be crucial in enabling PLWH to create a social network that contributes to the management of their health status. Therefore, for the clinical assessment it would be important to assess the degree of emotional reactivity and internalized stigma to provide PLWH with appropriate coping strategies for optimal adherence to the treatment course.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 venuePosterSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207