Process evaluation of an HIV stigma reduction intervention among young people in northern Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV stigma among youth in Uganda remains prevalent and impedes efforts to advance HIV prevention. A community-based participatory approach and arts-based population health intervention were undertaken to reduce HIV stigma among young people in northern Uganda. A mixed-method process evaluation aimed to examine successes and barriers to intervention implementation, contextual circumstances that may have influenced intervention outcomes, and acceptability and subjective evaluations among participants. The process evaluation drew data from daily lesson logs and classroom observation notes from Research Assistants (RAs), minutes from research team and school meetings, exit interviews with participants, and a focus group discussion with RAs. Data were collected during the 2023 school year (January to December 2023) in 12 schools in Omoro District, northern Uganda. Key summaries were made from data sources and organized into tables. The use of Linnan and Steckler's (Process evaluation and public health interventions: an overview. In: Process Evaluation in Public Health Interventions and Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2002, 1-13.) comprehensive framework and components of process evaluation, such as context, fidelity, reach, and dose received and delivered, guided this process evaluation. Findings highlighted that although implementation faced time constraints and contextual challenges, including monetary and material compensation, the intervention was delivered as planned and increased awareness of HIV stigma and cultural knowledge for students, teachers, Elders, and communities in Omoro District. Participants also reported that the intervention enhanced cultural understanding by integrating local traditions, proverbs, and storytelling into the educational process, leading to a reduction in HIV stigma among students. Future research should consider contextual and cultural relevancy of interventions as instrumental to an intervention's acceptability and adoption among target populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".