Male participation in prevention programmes of mother to child transmission of HIV: a protocol for a systematic review to identify barriers, facilitators and reported interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infection with the HIV and AIDS are leading causes of morbidity and mortality among women and children worldwide. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) programs were developed to protect women and their babies from having HIV infection. However, knowledge on how male participation has been applied to these programs is limited. We present a research protocol for a review which seeks to determine the effects of male participation on female uptake of PMTCT programs, and assess how this male participation has been investigated and documented worldwide. METHODS: This is a systematic review of published literature. We will attempt to identify all studies relevant to the subject written in the English language from January 1998 to June 2011. Electronic searches of the PubMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS databases will be conducted using the relevant medical subject headings. Reference lists of identified studies and previous reviews will be manually checked for articles of interest. We shall also contact authors on the field for any relevant material. Two authors (FM and LM) will independently screen potential articles for eligibility using well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They will independently assess the methodological quality of each included paper using the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Then they will independently extract data from the studies using a pre-established data extraction form. The primary outcome data will be female uptake of PMTCT services following a male/couple intervention, while secondary outcome measures will include indicators and barriers of male participation in PMTCT activities among others. During the data extraction process, discrepancies between the two authors will be sorted out by discussion or consultation with a third party (LT). The analysis and reporting of the review will be according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Any identified clinical or statistical heterogeneity will be explored. Where possible, a random-effects meta-analysis will be performed to obtain aggregate estimates. We will also assess publication bias using funnel plots. Analysis of other outcomes will be descriptive.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".