MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1439036471 · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000198

Mobile health applications for HIV prevention and care in Africa

2015· review· en· W1439036471 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie I. Forrest, Matthew O. Wiens, Steve Kanters, Sabin Nsanzimana, Richard Lester, Edward J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Health careMedicineEnvironmental healthData scienceComputer scienceFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: More people have mobile phones in Africa than at any point in history. Mobile health (m-health), the use of mobile phones to support the delivery of health services, has expanded in recent years. Several models have been proposed for conceptualizing m-health in the fields of maternal-child health and chronic diseases. We conducted a literature review of m-health interventions for HIV prevention and care in African countries and present the findings in the context of a simplified framework. RECENT FINDINGS: Our review identified applications of m-health for HIV prevention and care categorized by the following three themes: patient-care focused applications, such as health behavior change, health system-focused applications, such as reporting and data collection, and population health-focused applications, including HIV awareness and testing campaigns. SUMMARY: The potential for m-health in Africa is numerous and should not be limited only to direct patient-care focused applications. Although the use of smart phone technology is on the rise in Africa, text messaging remains the primary mode of delivering m-health interventions. The rate at which mobile phone technologies are being adopted may outpace the rate of evaluation. Other methods of evaluation should be considered beyond only randomized-controlled trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207