Rehabilitation interventions for children living with HIV: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the extent (how many), range (variation) and nature (qualities) of rehabilitation interventions for children living with HIV. METHOD: Electronic databases, reference lists of included articles, and grey literature were searched. Title and abstract and full text review were completed independently by two reviewers. Each study's location, research methodology, interventions, the age of the participants, whether participants were receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), the health professions delivering the interventions, when the study was conducted and the composition of the research team were documented. The nature of the intervention goals was organized into qualitative categories. RESULTS: The 17 included studies were conducted in seven countries. Seven rehabilitation professions were involved with the interventions. The age of the participants ranged from 3 months to 24 years. The year in which the study was conducted and whether children were receiving ART were rarely specified. Studies focused on impairments. There were no studies on activity limitations and only two studies on participation restrictions. Alternative and complementary therapies were the most common interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Research in this area is limited. More rehabilitation research is needed especially in areas where the burden of the disease is highest and for those children receiving ART. Implications for Rehabilitation Many low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) struggle with an undersupply of trained rehabilitation professionals. Due to the large number of children living with HIV in LMICs, and as more continue to receive life-saving treatment, the need will grow for more rehabilitation professionals to work with this population to address HIV-related disability. This scoping review indicates that there is a dearth of research on interventions provided by allied health professionals, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech language pathologists for children living with HIV. There is a moderate literature base supporting the use of alternative and complementary therapies for children 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 | 0.018 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".