MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221114077 · doi:10.2196/33045

Technology-Based Interventions to Promote the HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Care Continuum: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4221114077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chenglin Hong, Laura S. Abrams, Ian W. Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUniversity of California, Los Angeles
KeywordsPre-exposure prophylaxisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Psychological interventionProtocol (science)MedicineSystematic reviewFamily medicineAlternative medicineMedical educationNursingMEDLINEPsychologyMen who have sex with menPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising biomedical intervention for HIV prevention. Researchers have proposed the PrEP care continuum to guide and evaluate PrEP implementation programs. Technology-based interventions (TBIs) have been widely used in HIV prevention and treatment programs, including for the promotion of the PrEP care continuum. The rapid development of new interventions using technology and electronic health methods emphasizes the need for a review of the effectiveness of these TBIs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the effectiveness and acceptability of TBIs used to promote the HIV PrEP care continuum. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Only intervention studies (ie, studies meeting the criteria of randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies) evaluating the effectiveness of TBIs will be included. We will search the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (NIH RePORT) for interventions involving PrEP. At least 2 reviewers will independently screen and select the studies, extract the data, and evaluate the quality of the studies, and discrepancies will be resolved by a senior author. We will provide a narrative synthesis of the included studies and present details about the study populations, interventions, and PrEP-related outcomes of significance. RESULTS: The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021249562). As of August 2021, we have completed the initial search and identified 1213 records. Study screening and data extracting are in progress. We expect the results to be ready by summer 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review will summarize successful experiences and lessons learned from the existing literature and therefore inform the design and implementation of intervention studies for PrEP care promotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021249562; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=249562. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33045.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.018
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.012

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→