MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293469409 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273389

Competing health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and early response: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4293469409 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Baral, Amrita Rao, Jean Olivier Twahirwa Rwema, Carrie Lyons, Müge Çevik, Anna Kågesten, Daouda Diouf, Annette H. Sohn, Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Gregorio A. Millett, Julia L. Marcus, Sharmistha Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilSouth African Medical Research CouncilViiV HealthcareNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesJohns Hopkins UniversityKaiser PermanenteGilead Sciences
KeywordsReproductive healthTuberculosisMalariaMedicinePublic healthPsychological interventionGlobal healthPandemicEnvironmental healthFamily medicineSyndemicMalnutritionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationImmunologyNursingDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has rapidly emerged as a global public health threat with infections recorded in nearly every country. Responses to COVID-19 have varied in intensity and breadth, but generally have included domestic and international travel limitations, closure of non-essential businesses, and repurposing of health services. While these interventions have focused on testing, treatment, and mitigation of COVID-19, there have been reports of interruptions to diagnostic, prevention, and treatment services for other public health threats. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a scoping review to characterize the early impact of COVID-19 on HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. METHODS: A scoping literature review was completed using searches of PubMed and preprint servers (medRxiv/bioRxiv) from November 1st, 2019 to October 31st, 2020, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 and HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. Empiric studies reporting original data collection or mathematical models were included, and available data synthesized by region. Studies were excluded if they were not written in English. RESULTS: A total of 1604 published papers and 205 preprints were retrieved in the search. Overall, 8.0% (129/1604) of published studies and 10.2% (21/205) of preprints met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review: 7.3% (68/931) on HIV, 7.1% (24/339) on tuberculosis, 11.6% (26/224) on malaria, 7.8% (19/183) on sexual and reproductive health, and 9.8% (13/132) on malnutrition. Thematic results were similar across competing health risks, with substantial indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response on diagnostic, prevention, and treatment services for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 emerged in the context of existing public health threats that result in millions of deaths every year. Thus, effectively responding to COVID-19 while minimizing the negative impacts of COVID-19 necessitates innovation and integration of existing programs that are often siloed across health systems. Inequities have been a consistent driver of existing health threats; COVID-19 has worsened disparities, reinforcing the need for programs that address structural risks. The data reviewed here suggest that effective strengthening of health systems should include investment and planning focused on ensuring the continuity of care for both rapidly emergent and existing public health threats.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.012 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207