MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2800046750 · doi:10.2196/resprot.9532

Integrated Models of Care for People Living with Hepatitis C Virus and a Substance Use Disorder: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2800046750 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lianping Ti, Stéphanie Parent, M. Eugenia Socías

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre on Substance UseAIDS VancouverUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicineSubstance useHepatitis C virusVirologyPsychiatryAlternative medicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People living with a substance use disorder (SUD) are a key population within the hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic. While integrated and community-based models of care have shown positive outcomes among this population, the literature has been primarily focused on the HIV context. This paper outlines a systematic review protocol on the impact of various integrated models of care, which includes HCV and SUD services, on various treatment, and health-related outcomes among this population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to determine the impact of integrated models of care on HCV and addiction treatment and health-related outcomes for adults living with HCV and an SUD. METHODS: We will search 5 databases, article reference lists, and abstracts from relevant conferences that investigate the impact of integrated models of care on treatment and health-related outcomes among people living with HCV and an SUD. Database searches will be conducted and titles, abstracts, and the full-text of the relevant studies will be independently reviewed in separate stages. The methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using a validated tool. Data from included articles will be extracted using a standardized form and synthesized in a narrative account. RESULTS: For this project, we have received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research. To date, we have completed the search strategy, reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts. Grading the selected studies and qualitative synthesis of the results are currently under way, and we expect the final results to be submitted for publication in the fall of 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review will describe different integrated models of care that could be effective in improving the health and well-being of people living with HCV and an SUD. Results of this review could also identify quality improvement strategies to minimize the health and cost burden imposed on patients, healthcare professionals, and the healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017078445; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=78445 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6z4YnkE9G).

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.018
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.011

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→