MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194944641 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101059

HIV self-testing with digital supports as the new paradigm: A systematic review of global evidence (2010–2021)

2021· review· en· W3194944641 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGrand Challenges Canada
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewSocial mediaPsychological interventionDigital healthWorld Wide WebMEDLINEHealth careComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is recommended by the WHO as an innovative strategy to reach UNAIDS targets to end HIV by 2030. HIVST with digital supports is defined as the use of digital interventions (e.g., website-based, social media, mobile HIVST applications (apps), text messaging (SMS), digital vending machines (digital VMs)) to improve the efficiency and impact of HIVST. HIVST deployment and integration in health services is an emerging priority. We conducted a systematic review aiming to close the gap in evidence that summarizes the impact of digitally supported HIVST and to inform policy recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles and abstracts on HIVST with digital supports published during the period February 1st, 2010 to June 15th, 2021, following Cochrane guidelines and PRISMA methodology. We assessed feasibility, acceptability, preference, and impact outcomes across all populations and study designs. Metrics reported were willingness to use HIVST, preferences for HIVST delivery, proportion of first-time testers, HIVST uptake, HIVST kit return rate, and linkage to care. Heterogeneity of the interventions and reported metrics precluded us from conducting a meta-analysis. FINDINGS: 46 studies were narratively synthesized, of which 72% were observational and 28% were RCTs. Half of all studies (54%, 25/46) assessed web-based innovations (e.g., study websites, videos, chatbots), followed by social media (26%, 12/46), HIVST-specific apps (7%, 3/46), SMS (9%, 4/46), and digital VMs (4%, 2/46). Web-based innovations were found to be acceptable (77-97%), preferred over in-person and hybrid options by more first-time testers (47-48%), highly feasible (93-95%), and were overall effective in supporting linkage to care (53-100%). Social media and app-based innovations also had high acceptability (87-95%) and linkage to care proportions (80-100%). SMS innovations increased kit return rates (54-94%) and HIVST uptake among hard-to-reach groups. Finally, digital VMs were highly acceptable (54-93%), and HIVST uptake was six times greater when using digital VMs compared to distribution by community workers. INTERPRETATION: HIVST with digital supports was deemed feasible, acceptable, preferable, and was shown to increase uptake, engage first-time testers and hard-to-reach populations, and successfully link participants to treatment. Findings pave the way for greater use of HIVST interventions with digital supports globally.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.336 · 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