Sex Differences in HIV Testing among Older Adults in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being sexually active and engaging in risky sexual behaviours similar to young adults, older adults (50 years or older) are less likely to receive HIV testing, and disaggregated data are still scarce about HIV prevention and treatment in this vulnerable population in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This systematic review is aimed at examining sex differences in HIV testing and counseling (HTC) among older adults in SSA. METHODS: A systematic search of four databases, namely, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Global Health, was conducted from 2000 to January 2020. The primary outcome of interest for this study was gender differences in HTC among older adults in SSA. Observational studies including cross-sectional, retrospective, and prospective cohort studies were included. Eligible studies must have reported sex differences in HIV testing uptake in a standard HTC service among older adults in SSA. RESULTS: From the database search, 4143 articles were identified. Five studies were ultimately included in the final review. Of the 1189 participants, 606 (51.1%) and 580 (48.9%) were female and male, respectively. The review findings suggested that both men and women preferred HTC providers that are the same sex as them with women additionally preferring a provider who is also of a similar age. Men and women differed in their pathways to getting tested for HIV. The review documented mixed results with regard to the associations between sex of older adults and uptake of HTC. Older adult HTC uptake data are limited in scope and coverage in sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSION: This review revealed shortage of evidence to evaluate optimum HTC utilization among older adults. Few studies examined sex differences in HIV testing among older adults in the region. There is a need for stakeholders working in the area of HIV prevention and treatment to focus on older adult health utilization evidence organization, disaggregated by age and sex. Hence, high-quality research designs are needed on the topic in order to generate good quality evidence for targeted interventions to improve HTC among older adults in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".