“They didn't think we'd live this long”: A qualitative exploration of older adults living with <scp>HIV</scp> perspectives on geriatric care in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care have increased life expectancy, leading to more older adults living with HIV. This study examines older adults' perspectives on geriatric healthcare needs. METHODS: A community-based qualitative study in Ontario, Canada, recruited some adults aged 50+ years living with HIV through quota and purposive sampling. Quota sampling was used to include individuals of different ages, genders and ethno-racial backgrounds to capture a range of experiences. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and focus groups, analyzed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. RESULTS: Participants included interviewees (n = 14) and focus group attendees (n = 12). Four themes emerged: (1) lack of knowledge and access to geriatric care, highlighting service challenges; (2) healthcare providers' understanding of HIV and ageing, with stigma concerns; (3) role of social support networks for emotional/practical support; and (4) requirements for improved geriatric care, advocating provider education and greater social care access. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in geriatric care for older adults with HIV highlight stigma, access issues and the need for education, virtual care and tailored, inclusive healthcare solutions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".