Human immunodeficiency virus testing and psychosocial outcomes: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The proposed scoping review will identify psychosocial outcomes immediately following human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing and their measurements, specifically among individuals with a new negative or positive test result. INTRODUCTION: No systematic study has described psychosocial outcomes and their measurements in persons immediately following HIV testing. Also, to our knowledge, there is no consensus on a core set of psychosocial outcomes and measurements following HIV diagnosis, which are essential for quality improvement. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All study designs will be considered. Participants with a new positive or negative HIV test result, regardless of sex or age, in any setting will be included. Any measured beneficial or harmful outcomes in the mental and social domains following a new diagnosis will be included. Psychosocial outcomes of participants undergoing treatment and care will be excluded. METHODS: The databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO will be searched, and published articles in English from 2007 to the present date will be included. The methods for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute will be followed. Data will be extracted from included studies by two reviewers. Any disagreements between the two reviewers will be solved through discussion in a team of five members. To define the specific concepts or outcome (sub)-domains and their measurements, the models proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology initiative and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, respectively, will be used. To analyze the data, this study will rely on a multi-level social-ecological model.
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 | 0.133 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.019 |
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".