MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317600552 · doi:10.1007/s40266-022-01003-3

Ageing with HIV: Medicine Optimisation Challenges and Support Needs for Older People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4317600552 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs & Aging · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCINAHLPsycINFOSystematic reviewMEDLINECritical appraisalGrey literatureFamily medicineData extractionGerontologyPolypharmacyAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risks of co-morbidities and polypharmacy. However, little is known about factors affecting their needs and concerns about medicines. This systematic review aims to describe these and to identify interventions to improve medicine optimisation outcomes in older PLWH. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases and grey literature were searched from inception to February 2022 including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PsychArticles, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, and Academic Search Complete. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting interventions/issues affecting older PLWH (sample populations with mean/median age ≥ 50 years; any aspect of medicine optimisation, or concerns). Quality assessments were completed by means of critical appraisal checklists for each study design. Title and abstract screening was led by one reviewer and a sample reviewed independently by two reviewers. Full-paper reviews were completed by one author and a 20% sample was reviewed independently by two reviewers. SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using standardised data extraction forms and synthesised according to outcomes or interventions reported. Data were summarised to include key themes, outcomes or concerns, and summary of intervention. RESULTS: Seventy-nine (n = 79) studies met the eligibility criteria, most of which originated from the USA (n = 36). A few studies originated from Australia (n = 5), Canada (n = 5), Spain (n = 9), and the UK (n = 5). Ten studies originated from Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya n = 1, South Africa n = 6, Tanzania n = 1, Uganda n = 1, Zimbabwe n = 1). The rest of the studies were from China (n = 1), France (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 1), Switzerland (n = 1), Saudi Arabia (n = 1) and Ukraine (n = 1). Publication dates ranged from 2002 to 2022. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 15,602 across studies. The factors affecting older PLWH's experience of and issues with medicines were co-morbidities, health-related quality of life, polypharmacy, drug interactions, adverse drug reactions, adherence, medicine burden, treatment burden, stigma, social support, and patient-healthcare provider relationships. Nine interventions were identified to target older persons, five aimed at improving medication adherence, two to reduce drug interactions, and two for medicine self-management initiatives. CONCLUSION: Further in-depth research is needed to understand older PLWH's experiences of medicines and their priority issues. Adherence-focused interventions are predominant, but there is a scarcity of interventions aimed at improving medicine experiences for this population. Multi-faceted interventions are needed to achieve medicine optimisation outcomes for PLWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020188448.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.300 · 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