Community-Level Resources Bolstering Resilience to HIV/AIDS: Perspectives of Middle-Aged and Older Men Who Have Sex with Men Living with HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most prior research on resilience to HIV/AIDS has utilized quantitative tools (e.g., scales and surveys) to examine individual-level assets (e.g., self-efficacy, hope, optimism) that researchers believe represent or approximate resilience to HIV/AIDS with minimal consideration for the perspectives of men who have sex with men (MSM), the population that has remained at greatest risk of, and the most impacted by HIV/AIDS in North America since the 1980s. The aim of this qualitative study is to identify community-level resources that bolster resilience to HIV/AIDS based specifically on the perspectives and lived experiences of middle-aged and older (MAO) MSM living with HIV/AIDS. Employing a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach involving the meaningful and active engagement of MSM at multiple levels (i.e., as research team members, peer researchers, Community Advisory Board representatives, community partners, and study participants), forty-one MAO MSM living with HIV/AIDS from Ontario, Canada, were included in the study’s semi-structured interviews. Utilizing thematic analysis, four major themes were identified from the interview data: (a) the 2SLGBTQ+ community; (b) community-based not-for-profit organizations; (c) public health services; and (d) neighbourhood support programs. This article discusses the value of community-level resources as important additions to individual-level assets for bolstering resilience to HIV/AIDS, as well as the implications of the study’s findings and limitations for future HIV/AIDS services and research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".