Integrative literature review of evidence‐based guidelines on antiretroviral therapy adherence among adult persons living with <scp>HIV</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To summarize recommendations from available evidence-based guidelines that enhance, address or guide antiretroviral therapy adherence among adult persons living with human immunodeficiency virus. DESIGN: An integrative literature review approach. DATA SOURCE: Guidelines were accessed through Google from the databases of the Canadian Medical Association InfoBase clinical practice database, National Guidelines Clearinghouse, Writer's Guidelines database, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UNICEF and WHO. Databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCOhost (CINAHL, ERIC, Academic search complete, E-journals, Psych Info and MEDLINE), EMERALD INSIGHT, JSTOR, SCIENCE DIRECT and FINDPLUS were also searched, followed by a citation search. Data sources were searched between 1996 and January 2022. REVIEW METHODS: The five steps of the integrative literature review process, as described by Whittemore and Knafl, were used. These steps are as follows: step one; problem identification, step two; literature search, step three; data evaluation; step four: data analysis and the final step was data presentation. RESULTS: Sixteen guidelines related to antiretroviral therapy adherence were included for data extraction and synthesis. The findings revealed two themes as follows: theme 1: monitoring antiretroviral therapy adherence and theme 2: interventions to promote antiretroviral therapy adherence related to education and counselling, adherence tools, health service delivery and antiretroviral strategies. CONCLUSION: Antiretroviral therapy adherence in adult persons requires both interventions as well as monitoring. The various contributing factors relating to antiretroviral therapy adherence should be further explored. IMPACT: Evidence from the included guidelines can assist nurses in promoting a person's adherence to antiretroviral treatment, which could improve their health and well-being.
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 | 0.056 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".