Canadian Policymaker Experiences on Reducing Syndemic Stigma for HIV and Substance Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People living with HIV (PLWH) and substance use disorder (SUD) experience highly stigmatized lives fraught by influences such as criminal law and stigmatizing public policies. Despite free access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and mental health services for all Canadian citizens, suboptimal adherence to ART and administratively cumbersome mental health interventions still exist. Many researchers have found the health services for both HIV and SUD to be dynamic, costly, and difficult to maintain; as such, the purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge gap related to the policy implications of syndemic stigma experienced by PLWH and SUD in Canada. Using the advocacy coalition framework and a snowball sampling strategy, semistructured in-depth interviews with six policymakers were conducted to explore how members of a policy coalition in the Canadian public health care system described the problem of syndemic stigma as it pertains to PLWH and SUD. The data sets were gathered and analyzed within a nine-step coding and analysis instrument created for this study, which enabled the emergence of triangulated themes and was used for future policy recommendations. It was demonstrated in the findings that while all policymakers were passionate about the work of helping PLWH and SUD, none were specifically trained in public administration; therefore, they were less equipped at solving any of the public policy problems and the structurally reinforced stigma that the PLWH and SUD continue to face. To effect positive social change, when attempting to solve complex policy problems such as syndemic stigma, organizations and other researchers should view it as a public policy problem that is solvable when practicing evidence-based public administration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".