MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771209304 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8520

Development of an Index of Engagement in HIV Care: An Adapted Internet-Based Delphi Process

2017· article· en· W2771209304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mallory O. Johnson, Kimberly A. Koester, Troy Wood, Torsten B. Neilands, Jamie L. Pomeranz, Katerina Christopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsDelphi methodConceptualizationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DelphiThe InternetMedicinePsychologyNursingFamily medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Improving engagement in medical care among persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is critical to optimizing clinical outcomes and reducing onward transmission of HIV. However, a clear conceptualization of what it means to be engaged in HIV care is lacking, and thus efforts to measure and enhance engagement in care are limited. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the use of a modified online Delphi process of consensus building to solicit input from a range of HIV and non-HIV researchers and providers, and to integrate that input with focus group data conducted with HIV-infected patients. The overarching goal was to generate items for a patient-centered measure of engagement in HIV care for use in future research and clinical practice. METHODS: We recruited 66 expert panelists from around the United States. Starting with six open-ended questions, we used four rounds of online Delphi data collection in tandem with 12 in-person focus groups with patients and cognitive interviews with 25 patients. RESULTS: We recruited 66 expert panelists from around the United States and 64 (97%) were retained for four rounds of data collection. Starting with six open-ended questions, we used four rounds of online Delphi data collection in tandem with 12 in-person focus groups with patients and cognitive interviews with 25 patients. The process resulted in an expansion to 120 topics that were subsequently reduced to 13 candidate items for the planned assessment measure. CONCLUSIONS: The process was an efficient method of soliciting input from geographically separated and busy experts across a range of disciplines and professional roles with the aim of arriving at a coherent definition of engagement in HIV care and a manageable set of survey items to assess it. Next steps are to validate the utility of the new measure in predicting retention in care, adherence to treatment, and clinical outcomes among patients 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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207