HIV and Depression – a systematic review of interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV-positive individuals are more likely to be diagnosed with major depressive disorder than HIV-negative individuals. Depression can precede diagnosis and be associated with risk factors for infection. The experience of illness can also exacerbate depressive episodes and depression can be a side effect to treatment. A systematic understanding of which interventions have been tested in and are effective with HIV-seropositive individuals is needed. This review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of evaluated interventions related to HIV and depression and provide some insight on questions of prevalence and measurement. Standard systematic research methods were used to gather quality published papers on HIV and depression. From the search, 1015 articles were generated and hand searched resulting in 90 studies meeting adequacy inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these, 67 (74.4%) were implemented in North America (the US and Canada) and 14 (15.5%) in Europe, with little representation from Africa, Asia and South America. Sixty-five (65.5%) studies recruited only men or mostly men, of which 31 (35%) recruited gay or bisexual men. Prevalence rates of depression ranged from 0 to 80%; measures were diverse and rarely adopted the same cut-off points. Twenty-one standardized instruments were used to measure depression. Ninety-nine interventions were investigated. The interventions were diverse and could broadly be categorized into psychological, psychotropic, psychosocial, physical, HIV-specific health psychology interventions and HIV treatment-related interventions. Psychological interventions were particularly effective and in particular interventions that incorporated a cognitive-behavioural component. Psychotropic and HIV-specific health psychology interventions were generally effective. Evidence is not clear-cut regarding the effectiveness of physical therapies and psychosocial interventions were generally ineffective. Interventions that investigated the effects of treatments for HIV and HIV-associated conditions on depression generally found that these treatments did not increase but often decreased depression. Interventions are both effective and available, although further research into enhancing efficacy would be valuable. Depression needs to be routinely logged in those with HIV infection during the course of their disease. Specific data on women, young people, heterosexual men, drug users and those indiverse geographic areas are needed. Measurement of depression needs to be harmonized and management into care protocols incorporated.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".