MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780803844 · doi:10.7448/ias.20.1/21371

Improving antiretroviral therapy adherence in resource-limited settings at scale: a discussion of interventions and recommendations

2017· article· en· W2780803844 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica E. Haberer, Lora Sabin, K. Rivet Amico, Catherine Orrell, Omar Galárraga, Alexander C. Tsai, Rachel Vreeman, Ira B. Wilson, Nadia A. Sam‐Agudu, Terrence F. Blaschke, Bernard Vrijens, Claude A. Mellins, Robert H. Remien, Sheri D. Weiser, Elizabeth D. Lowenthal, Michael J. Stirratt, Papa Salif Sow, Bruce Thomas, Nathan Ford, Edward J. Mills, Richard Lester, Jean B. Nachega, Bosco M. Bwana, Fred M. Ssewamala, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Paula Munderi, Elvin Geng, David R. Bangsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineSystematic reviewIncentiveHealth careScale (ratio)PopulationMEDLINENursingPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION:\nSuccessful population-level antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence will be necessary to realize both the clinical and prevention benefits of antiretroviral scale-up and, ultimately, the end of AIDS. Although many people living with HIV are adhering well, others struggle and most are likely to experience challenges in adherence that may threaten virologic suppression at some point during lifelong therapy. Despite the importance of ART adherence, supportive interventions have generally not been implemented at scale. The objective of this review is to summarize the recommendations of clinical, research, and public health experts for scalable ART adherence interventions in resource-limited settings. METHODS:\nIn July 2015, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation convened a meeting to discuss the most promising ART adherence interventions for use at scale in resource-limited settings. This article summarizes that discussion with recent updates. It is not a systematic review, but rather provides practical considerations for programme implementation based on evidence from individual studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the World Health Organization Consolidated Guidelines for HIV, which include evidence from randomized controlled trials in low- and middle-income countries. Interventions are categorized broadly as education and counselling; information and communication technology-enhanced solutions; healthcare delivery restructuring; and economic incentives and social protection interventions. Each category is discussed, including descriptions of interventions, current evidence for effectiveness, and what appears promising for the near future. Approaches to intervention implementation and impact assessment are then described. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:\nThe evidence base is promising for currently available, effective, and scalable ART adherence interventions for resource-limited settings. Numerous interventions build on existing health care infrastructure and leverage available resources. Those most widely studied and implemented to date involve peer counselling, adherence clubs, and short message service (SMS). Many additional interventions could have an important impact on ART adherence with further development, including standardized counselling through multi-media technology, electronic dose monitoring, decentralized and differentiated models of care, and livelihood interventions. Optimal targeting and tailoring of interventions will require improved adherence measurement. CONCLUSION:\nThe opportunity exists today to address and resolve many of the challenges to effective ART adherence, so that they do not limit the potential of ART to help bring about the end of AIDS.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University)Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207