Research priorities for rehabilitation and aging with HIV: a framework from the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative (CIHRRC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People living with HIV are living longer, and can experience physical, mental and social health challenges associated with aging and multimorbidity. Rehabilitation is well positioned to address disability and maximize healthy aging. An international collaborative network, called the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative (CIHRRC), works to guide this emerging field. In this article, we report findings from CIHRRC's aim to identify emerging research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation from the perspectives of people living with HIV, clinicians, researchers, representatives from community organizations and policy stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stakeholder multi-method international consultation with people living with HIV, researchers, clinicians and representatives of community-based organizations to identify research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation. Stakeholders identified research priorities during a one-day International Forum comprised of presentations and facilitated discussion. We collated and analyzed data using content analytical techniques, resulting in a framework of research priorities. RESULTS: Sixty-nine stakeholders from countries including Canada (n = 62; 90%), the United Kingdom (n = 5; 7%), United States (n = 1; 1%) and Australia (n = 1; 1%) attended the International Forum on HIV, Aging and Rehabilitation Research. Stakeholders represented community-based organizations (n = 20; 29%), academic institutions (n = 18; 26%), community or institutional healthcare organizations (n = 11; 16%), research or knowledge production organizations (n = 10; 14%), and organizations representing government or industry (n = 10; 14%). The Framework of Research Priorities in HIV, Aging and Rehabilitation includes seven research priorities: (1) nature, extent and impact of disability, concurrent health conditions and chronic inflammation with HIV; (2) prevalence, severity and impact of frailty; (3) community and social participation aging with HIV; (4) strategies for chronic disease management and healthy aging with HIV; (5) facilitators and barriers to access and engagement in, rehabilitation; (6) effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for healthy aging with HIV; and (7) advancing development and use of patient reported outcome measures in HIV and aging. The Framework highlights methodological considerations to approach the priorities and the importance of knowledge translation and exchange to apply research knowledge into practice, programs and policy. CONCLUSIONS: These priorities offer a foundation for collaboration among international and multidisciplinary teams to advance the field of HIV, aging and rehabilitation in order to promote healthy aging with HIV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".