The moderating effect of healthcare empowerment on the relationship between stigma and self‐rated health in people living with <scp>HIV</scp> in <scp>Canada</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the moderating effect of healthcare empowerment on the relationship between enacted, internalized and anticipated stigma and self-rated health. METHODS: Participants (n = 1318) were recruited to complete the People Living with HIV Stigma Index, a community-based cross-sectional survey administered across all provinces in Canada from August 2018 to October 2024. The survey contained externally validated quantitative scales measuring stigma, healthcare empowerment and health. Healthcare empowerment was broken down into subscales of Informed, Committed, Collaborative, and Engaged (ICCE) and Tolerance of Uncertainty (TU). Moderation models were created for each type of stigma as the antecedent, healthcare empowerment (total, ICCE and TU) as the moderator, and self-rated health as the outcome. RESULTS: Total healthcare empowerment was a significant moderator for the relationship between enacted (b = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.23) and internalized (b = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.37) stigma and self-rated health. The ICCE subscale was a significant moderator for the relationship between internalized (b = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.33) and anticipated (b = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.31) stigma and self-rated health. Overall, for those with low levels of healthcare empowerment, greater enacted and internalized stigma resulted in worse self-rated health; however, high levels of healthcare empowerment buffered the negative impact of stigma. CONCLUSION: Healthcare empowerment may have the potential to buffer or mitigate the negative effect of stigma. Understanding how to bolster levels of healthcare empowerment, specifically dimensions of ICCE, may be important for the development of interventions aiming to reduce the impact of stigma for people living with HIV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".