The effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake and retention of HIV-infected pregnant and breastfeeding women and their infants in prevention of mother-to-child transmission care programs in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recent improvements, uptake and retention of mothers and infants in prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) services remain well below target levels in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Identification of effective interventions to support uptake and retention is the first step towards improvement. We aim to complete a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions at the patient, provider or health system level in improving uptake and retention of HIV-infected mothers and their infants in PMTCT services in LMICs. METHODS/DESIGN: We will include studies comparing usual care or no intervention to any type of intervention to improve uptake and retention of HIV-infected pregnant or breastfeeding women and their children from birth to 2 years of age attending PMTCT services in LMICs. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, non-randomized controlled trials, and interrupted time series. The primary outcomes of interest are percentage of HIV-infected women receiving/initiated on anti-retroviral prophylaxis or treatment, percentage of infants receiving/initiated on anti-retroviral prophylaxis, and percentage of women and infants completing the anti-retroviral regimen/retained in PMTCT care. The following databases will be searched from inception: Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE, The WHO Global Health Library, CAB abstracts, EBM Reviews, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and Web of Science databases, Scopus, PsychINFO, POPLINE, Sociological Abstracts, ERIC, AIDS Education Global Information System, NLM Gateway, LILACS, Google Scholar, British Library Catalogue, DARE, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, the New York Academy of Grey Literature, Open Grey, The Cochrane Library, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, Controlled Clinical Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov. Reference lists of included articles will be hand searched and study authors and content experts contacted to inquire about eligible unpublished or in progress studies. Screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care criteria will be conducted independently by two team members. Results will be synthesized narratively and a meta-analysis conducted using the DerSimonian Laird random effects method if appropriate based on assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: Our findings will be useful to PMTCT implementers, policy makers, and implementation researchers working in LMICs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015020829.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".