Caring for women living with HIV: gaps in the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the management of HIV, women and men generally undergo the same treatment pathway, with gender differences being given limited consideration. This is in spite of accumulating evidence that there are a number of potential differences between women and men which may affect response to treatment, pharmacokinetics, toxicities and coping. There are also notable psychological, behavioural, social and structural factors that may have a unique impact on women living with HIV (WLWH). Despite our increasing knowledge of HIV and advances in treatment, there are significant gaps in the data relating specifically to women. One of the factors contributing to this situation is the under-representation of women in all aspects of HIV clinical research. Furthermore, there are clinical issues unique to women, including gynaecologic and breast diseases, menopause-related factors, contraception and other topics related to women's and sexual health. METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, articles from the literature from 1980 to 2012 were identified using appropriate MeSH headings reflecting the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. Titles and abstracts were scanned to determine whether they were relevant to non-reproductive health in WLWH, and papers meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed. RESULTS: This review summarizes our current knowledge of the clinical status of WLWH, particularly in the areas of clinical management, sexual health, emotional wellbeing and treatment access. It suggests that there are a number of gender differences in disease and treatment outcomes, and distinct women-specific issues, such as menopause and co-morbidities, that pose significant challenges to the care of WLWH. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a review of this evidence, outstanding questions and areas where further studies are required to determine gender differences in the efficacy and safety of treatment and other clinical and psychological issues specifically affecting WLWH have been identified. Well-controlled and adequately powered clinical studies are essential to help provide answers to these questions and to contribute to activities aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of WLWH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".