Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines in HIV Rehabilitation: Process Recommendations and Guiding Principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose was to develop process recommendations and guiding principles for future clinical practice guidelines in HIV rehabilitation. We conducted a scoping study that included focus group and interview consultations with 28 participants including people living with HIV, researchers, clinicians, educators, and policy stakeholders with expertise in HIV and rehabilitation. We used qualitative content analysis techniques to identify emergent themes related to the development of clinical practice guidelines. Results included seven recommendations for the process of developing clinical practice guidelines in HIV rehabilitation that spanned areas of flexibility, scope, adopting existing evidence from concurrent health conditions, format, interprofessional approach to development and implementation, terminology, and knowledge translation. Three guiding principles emerged to inform the philosophical approach for guideline development. These findings serve as a foundation for the development of clinical practice guidelines in HIV rehabilitation to enhance the care and treatment of people living with HIV.
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 | 0.375 | 0.409 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".