MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782776732 · doi:10.1002/jia2.25048

Comparative assessment of five trials of universal <scp>HIV</scp> testing and treatment in sub‐Saharan Africa

2018· article· en· W2782776732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Delphine Perriat, Laura B. Balzer, Richard Hayes, Shahin Lockman, Fiona Walsh, Helen Ayles, Sian Floyd, Diane V. Havlir, Moses R. Kamya, Refeletswe Lebelonyane, Lisa Mills, Velephi Okello, Maya L. Petersen, Deenan Pillay, Kalpana Sabapathy, Kathleen E. Wirth, Joanna Orne‐Gliemann, François Dabis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilAgence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les Hépatites ViralesInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefNational Institutes of HealthGlobal Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and MalariaInternational Development Research CentreGilead SciencesWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates FoundationWorld Bank GroupFP7 International CooperationDoctors Without BordersMerck
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Clinical trialPopulationClinical study designIntervention (counseling)Research designDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGerontologyNursingEconomic growthGeographyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DESIGN: Universal voluntary HIV counselling and testing followed by prompt initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all those diagnosed HIV-infected (universal test and treat, UTT) is now a global health standard. However, its population-level impact, feasibility and cost remain unknown. Five community-based trials have been implemented in sub-Saharan Africa to measure the effects of various UTT strategies at population level: BCPP/YaTsie in Botswana, MaxART in Swaziland, HPTN 071 (PopART) in South Africa and Zambia, SEARCH in Uganda and Kenya and ANRS 12249 TasP in South Africa. This report describes and contrasts the contexts, research methodologies, intervention packages, themes explored, evolution of study designs and interventions related to each of these five UTT trials. METHODS: We conducted a comparative assessment of the five trials using data extracted from study protocols and collected during baseline studies, with additional input from study investigators. We organized differences and commonalities across the trials in five categories: trial contexts, research designs, intervention packages, trial themes and adaptations. RESULTS: All performed in the context of generalized HIV epidemics, the trials highly differ in their social, demographic, economic, political and health systems settings. They share the common aim of assessing the impact of UTT on the HIV epidemic but differ in methodological aspects such as study design and eligibility criteria for trial populations. In addition to universal ART initiation, the trials deliver a wide range of biomedical, behavioural and structural interventions as part of their UTT strategies. The five studies explore common issues, including the uptake rates of the trial services and individual health outcomes. All trials have adapted since their initiation to the evolving political, economic and public health contexts, including adopting the successive national recommendations for ART initiation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial commonalities but also differences between the five UTT trials in their design, conduct and multidisciplinary outputs. As empirical literature on how UTT may improve efficiency and quality of HIV care at population level is still scarce, this article provides a foundation for more collaborative research on UTT and supports evidence-based decision making for HIV care in country and internationally.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations110
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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