Patient and provider perceived barriers and facilitators to direct acting antiviral hepatitis C treatment among priority populations in high income countries: A knowledge synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have increased cure rates for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; however, there are several obstacles to the uptake of DAAs in populations where substance use contributes to HCV risk. This synthesis aimed to identify the patient and provider perceived barriers and facilitators to DAA treatment initiation in key patient subgroups-people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM), and Indigenous people. METHODS: We systematically searched seven databases and conducted a gray literature search for studies that qualitatively explored patient and provider perceived barriers and facilitators to DAA treatment in our populations of interest. Selected studies were published after 2013 when second generation DAAs became available. The titles, abstracts, and subsequently full texts were screened by two independent reviewers and critically appraised. Barriers and facilitators to DAA treatment uptake were then extracted and thematically synthesized. RESULTS: 2144 titles and abstracts were identified and screened; 29 full texts were subsequently reviewed. Twelve qualitative studies were finally included. Among providers, perceived barriers to DAA treatment uptake included lack of resources and lack of provider knowledge on HCV while facilitators to treatment provision included simplicity of DAA regimens and professional identity as a doctor to advocate for patients. Among patients, perceived barriers to treatment uptake included current drug use, concerns about side effects of DAAs, stigma, gaps in community care, competing social responsibilities and mental health issues while facilitators included having a trustworthy provider and access to multidisciplinary HCV care. CONCLUSION: Despite simplicity of DAAs, many structural barriers to optimal HCV care continue to be experienced by patients and providers. In highlighting nuanced patient and provider perceived barriers and facilitators, this review underscores the need to involve participatory methods in the design and evaluation of interventions to best improve access to care.
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 | 0.036 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".