Does adherence to antiretroviral therapy differ by place of residence in Nigeria? A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Retention in care is still a significant challenge in the HIV treatment cascade and varies extensively across regions, leading to poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). Several factors across different socioecological levels, such as health and community-level factors, inhibit ART adherence among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Nigeria. This review seeks to ask whether adherence to ART differs by place of residence in Nigeria. Method and analysis This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar from onset to 30 April 2023. We will include only quantitative observational studies or mixed-method studies that measured the association between place of residence (urban and rural) and adherence to ART among PLWH aged ≥15 years. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment will be done by two reviewers independently. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements. We will extract the author’s name and year of publication, study aim(s), participant’s characteristics, sample size, sampling method, region and state, adherence definition and adherence level in urban and rural areas. Data will be analysed with Review Manager V.5.4. The Q statistical test will be used to assess between-study heterogeneity, while Higgins and Thompson’s I2will be used to quantify the heterogeneity level. Several subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not warranted for this study since primary published data will be utilised. The findings of this review will be published in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal and presented at a conference. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022371965.
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 | 0.084 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.009 |
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".