Adaptive Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence Interventions for Youth Living With HIV Through Text Message and Cell Phone Support With and Without Incentives: Protocol for a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth living with HIV (YLH) aged 13 to 24 years made up over a fifth (21%) of new HIV diagnoses in 2016, yet only 27% of YLH are virally suppressed. YLH have been shown to be poorly adherent to antiretroviral therapy (ART); however, there has been limited research investigating how to increase adherence in YLH. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may be one promising way to do this. OBJECTIVE: This study (ATN [Adolescent Trials Network] 144 SMART) aimed to compare adaptive interventions that could increase ART adherence in YLH aged 15 to 24 years. This includes mHealth initiatives, the tapering of interventions, and the use of incentives. Cost-effectiveness of sequencing the interventions without incentives before providing incentives and the savings on societal costs due to suppressed viral loads will be determined. This protocol is part of the ATN Scale It Up program described in this issue by Naar et al. METHODS: This study uses a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial design. Approximately 190 participants are being recruited, enrolled, and randomized to either cell phone support or text message support. Both intervention groups receive 3 months of intervention, followed by a second randomization based on response to the intervention. Responders test tapering their intervention, and nonresponders test receiving incentives. RESULTS: Data collection for this study is projected to begin in August 2018 and last until June 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This is an innovative study, particularly in terms of population, intervention types, focus on cost-effectiveness, and recruitment. This study could be particularly effective in improving adherence in YLH while reducing long-term individual and societal costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03535337; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03535337 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74alXb92z). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/11183.
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 | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.013 |
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".