MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084627861 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01470-y

Protocol for a systematic review of treatment adherence for HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis among homeless populations

2020· review· en· W3084627861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke Johnson, Dan Lewer, Robert W Aldridge, Andrew Hayward, Alistair Story

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResearch Trainees Coordinating CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)TuberculosisHepatitis CFamily medicineMedication adherenceVirologyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is a global issue and HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis are known to be prevalent in this group. Homeless populations face significant barriers to care. We aim to summarise evidence of treatment initiation and completion for homeless populations with these infections, and their associated factors, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for all study types and conference abstracts looking at either (1) treatment initiation in a cohort experiencing homelessness with at least one of HIV, hepatitis C, active tuberculosis and/or latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI); (2) treatment completion for those who initiated treatment. We will perform a meta-analysis of the proportion of those with each infection who initiate and complete treatment, as well as analysis of individual and health system factors that may affect adherence levels. We will evaluate the quality of research papers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. DISCUSSION: Given the political emphasis on global elimination of these diseases, and the current lack of understanding of effective and equitable treatment adherence strategies in homeless populations, this review will provide insight to policy-makers and service providers aiming to improve homeless healthcare. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019153150.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207