MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183569425 · doi:10.7448/ias.18.6.20290

Human rights and the sexual and reproductive health of women living with HIV – a literature review

2015· review· en· W2183569425 on OpenAlexaff
Shubha Kumar, Sofia Gruskin, Rajat Khosla, Manjulaa Narasimhan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGrey literatureReproductive rightsReproductive healthHuman rightsMedicineConfidentialityInclusion (mineral)Right to healthNeglectFamily medicineGender studiesMEDLINENursingLawEnvironmental healthSociologyPolitical sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Even as the number of women living with HIV around the globe continues to grow, realization of their sexual and reproductive health and human rights remains compromised. The objective of this study was to review the current state of knowledge on the sexual and reproductive health and human rights of women living with HIV to assess evidence and gaps. METHODS: Relevant databases were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Search terms included a combination of MeSH terms and keywords representing women, HIV/AIDS, ART, human rights, sexual and reproductive health. We included both qualitative and quantitative literature published in English, French, or Spanish between July 2011 and December 2014. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The search yielded 2228 peer-reviewed articles, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria in the final review. The grey literature search yielded 2186 documents of which seven met the inclusion criteria in the final review. Of the articles and documents reviewed, not a single peer-reviewed article described the explicit implementation of rights in programming, and only two documents from the grey literature did so. With one possible exception, no articles or documents were found which addressed rights comprehensively, or addressed the majority of relevant rights (i.e. equality; non-discrimination; participation; privacy and confidentiality; informed decision making; availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (3AQ) of services individually or in their totality; and accountability). Additional findings indicate that the language of rights is used most often to describe the apparent neglect or violation of human rights and what does exist only addresses a few rights in the context of a few areas within sexual and reproductive health. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review suggest the need to better integrate rights into interventions, particularly with attention to provider training, service delivery, raising awareness and capacity building among the community of women living with HIV. Further research is urgently needed to support the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women living with HIV, to identify what works and to inform future programming and policies to improve care, treatment and support for women 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International AIDS SocietySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207