Do digital innovations for HIV and sexually transmitted infections work? Results from a systematic review (1996-2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Digital innovations with internet/mobile phones offer a potential cost-saving solution for overburdened health systems with high service delivery costs to improve efficiency of HIV/STI (sexually transmitted infections) control initiatives. However, their overall evidence has not yet been appraised. We evaluated the feasibility and impact of all digital innovations for all HIV/STIs. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All settings/all participants. INTERVENTION: We classified digital innovations into (1) mobile health-based (mHealth: SMS (short message service)/phone calls), (2) internet-based mobile and/or electronic health (mHealth/eHealth: social media, avatar-guided computer programs, websites, mobile applications, streamed soap opera videos) and (3) combined innovations (included both SMS/phone calls and internet-based mHealth/eHealth). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility, acceptability, impact. METHODS: We searched databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science, abstracted data, explored heterogeneity, performed a random effects subgroup analysis. RESULTS: We reviewed 99 studies, 63 (64%) were from America/Europe, 36 (36%) from Africa/Asia; 79% (79/99) were clinical trials; 84% (83/99) evaluated impact. Of innovations, mHealth based: 70% (69/99); internet based: 21% (21/99); combined: 9% (9/99).All digital innovations were highly accepted (26/31; 84%), and feasible (20/31; 65%). Regarding impacted measures, mHealth-based innovations (SMS) significantly improved antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence (pooled OR=2.15(95%CI: 1.18 to 3.91)) and clinic attendance rates (pooled OR=1.76(95%CI: 1.28, 2.42)); internet-based innovations improved clinic attendance (6/6), ART adherence (4/4), self-care (1/1), while reducing risk (5/5); combined innovations increased clinic attendance, ART adherence, partner notifications and self-care. Confounding (68%) and selection bias (66%) were observed in observational studies and attrition bias in 31% of clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Digital innovations were acceptable, feasible and generated impact. A trend towards the use of internet-based and combined (internet and mobile) innovations was noted. Large scale-up studies of high quality, with new integrated impact metrics, and cost-effectiveness are needed. Findings will appeal to all stakeholders in the HIV/STI global initiatives space.
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 | 0.021 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".