Delivery of the women-centred HIV care model in Canadian HIV clinics: an environmental scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Women-Centred HIV Care (WCHC) Model addresses women living with HIV's multifaceted healthcare needs, but its delivery remains unclear. This environmental scan examines the delivery of the WCHC Model in Canadian HIV clinics. Clinics were surveyed on health service delivery, then scored out of 10 in the six domains of the WCHC Model using a service-based score system. Generally, on-site services were assigned more value than off-site referrals. Of 59 clinics, 35 (59%) were surveyed, representing all Canadian regions except Alberta, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. The highest scoring domains were HIV care (median [interquartile range] 9.3 [8.6-9.9]) and sexual health care (9.0 [7.0-10.0]), while the peer support/leadership/capacity building domain scored lowest (2.1 [0.0-5.3]). Scores varied between regions in trauma/violence-aware care (7.5 [1.3-10.0]), person-centred care (6.7 [5.0-10.0]), women's healthcare (7.5 [6.3-8.8]) and mental health/addiction care (6.7 [5.0-8.3]). On-site mental health and addiction services were largely unavailable. Our findings demonstrate that WCHC Model delivery varies between regions, with Canada-wide strengths in HIV and sexual health care. Increasing the availability of peer support/leadership/capacity building opportunities and on-site mental health and addiction services at HIV clinics would enhance comprehensive care for women 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".