Research on rehabilitation interventions for adults living with HIV: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to use a scoping review to investigate the extent, range, and nature of research on rehabilitation interventions for adults living with HIV. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsychINFO) and reference lists of the included articles were searched. Authors were emailed when possible for unavailable articles. A total of 897 titles and abstracts were retrieved. Thirty-three articles were included. There were 27 different rehabilitation interventions delivered by 18 professions. The studies were completed in four different countries. Most studies were published in 2008. A randomized-controlled trial was the most used method. The nature of the studies was analyzed according to the three-core concepts of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: 28 studies addressed impairments; six studies addressed activity limitations; and 14 studies addressed participation restrictions. This scoping study advances the knowledge of research on rehabilitation interventions for adults living with HIV. More research on rehabilitation interventions is needed in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income and middle-income countries to ensure that these individuals are receiving the best possible care. There is a need for the HIV field to recognize the important contribution of rehabilitation toward the HIV care continuum.
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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".