The effectiveness of community interventions targeting HIV and AIDS prevention at young people in developing countries.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To identify successful HIV/AIDS prevention interventions targeting youths and delivered in geographically bounded communities (for example, rural villages, urban settlements or neighbourhoods) in developing countries. METHODS: A systematic review and synthesis of studies evaluating interventions that were published between January 1990 and December 2004 was conducted. Using predetermined criteria, all interventions were summarized into multiple tables to facilitate comparison. Results of the evaluations of each of four types of intervention were reviewed using predetermined thresholds of evidence. The four types of interventions were classified as follows. Type 1 interventions were those targeting youths and delivered through existing organizations or centres that served youths. Type 2 were those targeting youths but not affiliated with existing organizations or centres. Type 3 were those targeting all community members and delivered through traditional kinship networks. Type 4 were those targeting communities as a whole and delivered through community-wide events. FINDINGS: Evaluations of 22 interventions were reviewed. Type 1 interventions produced primarily positive results at the required threshold of evidence. They are recommended for use in scaling-up projects but should be subject to continued rigorous evaluations. Studies of all other intervention types produced primarily positive results, but the evaluations were less rigorous so clear conclusions could not be drawn about their effectiveness. It is recommended that these interventions be continued and that priority should be given to implementing rigorous evaluations of these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable creativity, ingenuity and commitment is demonstrated in designing and delivering HIV interventions but there is a paucity of adequate evidence of their effectiveness. This precludes identification of the types of interventions that actually produce the targeted changes. It is essential that governments and donor agencies invest in high quality process and outcome evaluations and cost-benefit analyses so that effective interventions can be identified and promoted.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».