The impacts of care giving on the wellbeing of caregivers of people living with HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that caregivers are confronted with a number of stressors such as burnout, compassion fatigue, and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of being in direct or close contact with the people suffering from chronic diseases such as HIV/AIDS. However, relevant and professional training, and effective self-care strategies could prevent such stressors. Using the “Individual Interviews with Formal Caregivers” dataset, this study looked at the experiences of seventeen caregivers who provided care to stigmatized and low income people of living with HIV/AIDS. The study sought to understand how the well-being of caregivers was impacted by providing care to stigmatized and low income people living with HIV/AIDS in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Also, it examined how formal caregivers perceived their relationship with people living with HIV/AIDS at their care. The findings suggested that caregivers were confronted with and experienced stressors such as burnout, compassion fatigue, and secondary traumatic stress due to having direct and close relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS in their care. Medical caregivers treating HIV/AIDS patients perceived these as formal professional relationships; however, most caregivers working in community support, community outreach, and education sectors understood their caregiving relationships with people living with HIV/AIDS as that of supporter and helper. There was not much research on how caregivers in HIV/AIDS sector perceived their relationships with people living with HIV in their care, so further research is needed to explore the nature of the relationship between the caregiver and care recipients. Finally, this study enriched the existing research on this topic by providing an insight on how caregivers in HIV sector perceive their relationships with individuals living with HIV/ AIDS in their care.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".