Psychological interventions for Common Mental Disorders for People Living With <scp>HIV</scp> in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of structured psychological interventions against common mental disorders (CMD) in people living with HIV infection (PLWH), in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: Systematic review of psychological interventions for CMD from LMIC for PLWH, with two-stage screening carried out independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: Of 190 studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. These were randomised-controlled trials based on the principles of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and were effective in reducing CMD symptoms in PLWH. Follow-up of study participants ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months with multiple tools utilised to measure the primary outcome. Four studies showed a high risk of bias, while 1 study from Iran met low risk of bias in all 6 domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool and all 22 items of the CONSORT instrument. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more robust and adequately powered studies to further explore CBT-based interventions in PLWH. Future studies should report on components of the psychological interventions, fidelity measurement and training, including supervision of delivering agents, particularly where lay health workers are the delivering agent.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".