Systematic review of HIV treatment adherence research among people who inject drugs in the United States and Canada: evidence to inform pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for HIV acquisition and could benefit from antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, PrEP has been underutilized in this population, and PrEP adherence intervention needs are understudied. METHODS: To inform PrEP intervention development, we reviewed evidence on antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence among HIV-infected PWID. Guided by a behavioral model of healthcare utilization and using the PICOS framework, we conducted a systematic review in four electronic databases to identify original research studies of ART adherence in HIV-infected PWID in the United States and Canada between Jan 1, 2006-Dec 31, 2016. We synthesized and interpreted findings related to developing recommendations for PrEP adherence interventions for PWID. RESULTS: After excluding 618 duplicates and screening 1049 unique records, we retained 20 studies of PWID (mean n = 465) with adherence-related outcomes (via pharmacy records: n = 9; self-report: n = 8; biological markers: n = 5; electronic monitoring: n = 2). Predisposing factors (patient-level barriers to adherence) included younger age, female sex, and structural vulnerability (e.g., incarceration, homelessness). Enabling resources (i.e., facilitators) that could be leveraged or promoted by interventions included self-efficacy, substance use treatment, and high-quality patient-provider relationships. Competing needs that require specific intervention strategies or adaptations included markers of poor physical health, mental health comorbidities (e.g., depression), and engagement in transactional sex. CONCLUSIONS: HIV treatment adherence research carries important lessons for efforts to optimize PrEP adherence among PWID. Despite limitations, this systematic review suggests that strategies are needed to engage highly vulnerable and marginalized sub-groups of this underserved population (e.g., younger PWID, women who inject drugs) in PrEP adherence-related research and programming.
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 | 0.022 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".