The impact of social protection interventions on treatment and socioeconomic outcomes of people with tuberculosis and their households: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of death due to infectious disease worldwide. People with TB and their households often suffer social and economic losses due to the cost of tuberculosis care. The World Health Organization 2015 End TB strategy called for socioeconomic support through social protection interventions. Social protection has the potential to enable people with TB and their households to break the cycle of TB and poverty, thereby improving both treatment and socioeconomic outcomes. This study aims to evaluate whether people with TB who are recipients of social protection interventions have better treatment and socioeconomic outcomes than those who are not recipients of social protection interventions. Methods: We will systematically review literature published in English between 2012 and 2021 from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and grey literature from Google Scholar and selected, relevant databases. We will include studies that describe a social protection intervention (as defined by the World Bank) and report on TB treatment outcomes and/or socioeconomic outcomes. We will only include studies pertaining to populations in low-and-middle-income countries and/or countries with high TB burden. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised controlled studies. If sufficient quantitative data are available, we will perform a meta-analysis of aggregated outcomes. Lastly, we will use the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to describe the overall quality of evidence. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review, as all data extraction and analysis will be conducted on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol through conference presentations. The systematic review has been registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42022382181 ).
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 | 0.081 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.010 |
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".