MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3096758331 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040646

Barriers and facilitators associated with steps of the HIV care cascade for migrants in OECD countries: a systematic mixed studies review protocol

2020· article· en· W3096758331 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anish Arora, Amélie Quesnel‐Vallée, David Lessard, Kedar Mate, Adriana Rodriguez-Cruz, Nadine Kronfli, Kim Engler, Isabelle Vedel, Bertrand Lebouché

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLCritical appraisalThematic analysisMEDLINEFamily medicineProtocol (science)Cochrane LibraryDeveloping countryScopusHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Qualitative researchNursingAlternative medicinePsychological interventionEconomic growthPolitical sciencePathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, the United Nations signalled a substantial rise in the number of international migrants, up to 272 million globally, about half of which move to only 10 countries, including 8 member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Migrants in OECD countries are often at higher risk for acquiring HIV and have a higher frequency of delayed HIV diagnosis. The barriers and facilitators that migrant people living with HIV (PLWH) in OECD countries face in relation to HIV care are insufficiently understood. The five-step HIV Care Cascade Continuum (HCCC) is an effective model to identify gaps, barriers and facilitators associated with HIV care. The purpose of this study is to generate a comprehensive, multilevel understanding of barriers and facilitators regarding the five steps of the HCCC model in OECD countries by migration status. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic mixed studies review using a data-based convergent design will be conducted. Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library will be searched on 25 March 2020. Screening and critical appraisal will be conducted independently by the first author. Authors 3-5 will act as second reviewers, each independently conducting 33% of the screening and appraisal. Quantitative data will be transformed to qualitative data and be synthesised using thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment. An advisory committee, composed of four migrant PLWH, will be involved in screening and appraising 5% of articles to build knowledge and experience with systematic reviews. They will also be involved in analysis and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the McGill University Health Centre (15-188-MUHC, 2016-1697, eReviews 4688). Publications arising from this study will be open-access. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020172122.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.014
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.007

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→