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
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> 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. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Ethics and dissemination:</ns4:bold> 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 <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns5="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns5:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=382181">CRD42022382181</ns4:ext-link> ). </ns4:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".