Healthcare Provider Strategies and Approaches to Supporting People Living With HIV Who Are Experiencing HIV Treatment Disengagement in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a strengths-based, qualitative study to elucidate the approaches and strategies utilized by healthcare providers (HCPs) to support HIV treatment engagement in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Healthcare providers (e.g., nurses, peer navigators, and pharmacists) across the province of BC were recruited through regional HIV programs and by word of mouth through purposive sampling strategies. An academic and community researcher co-conducted semi-structured phone interviews with HCPs providing HIV-specific healthcare. Emergent coding and participatory analysis, guided by interpretive description and the socio-ecological model, were used to uncover themes. Across all provincial health regions, 19 HCPs were interviewed between November 2020 and May 2021. Narratives centered around HIV care as a relational practice and the importance of person-centered care approaches. HCPs underscored the need to foster long-term, trusting relationships with clients, founded on respect, compassion, and non-judgmental approaches, which acknowledged the unique care engagement needs and experiences of people living with HIV (PLWH) experiencing treatment breaks. Successful engagement approaches supported clients' overall stability, which directly support treatment adherence. This includes strategies tailored to address unique client contexts and priorities related to psychosocial and other intersecting health needs. Collaborative relationships with other providers, both formal multidisciplinary team-based care and partnerships with ancillary service staff, were found to improve care continuity. Our study highlights the importance of relationship-building, person-centered care, and collaborative care to support PLWH experiencing breaks in treatment. HIV HCPs emphasized holistic, community-centered approaches as crucial to successful and long-term engagement of PLWH in 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".