Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Linkage to HIV Care Interventions in the United States, Canada, and Ukraine (2010–2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions targeting linkage to HIV care in the US, Canada, and Europe. We searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL). Inclusion criteria were English language studies in adults in the US, Canada, or Europe, published January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2021. We synthesized interventions by type and linkage to care outcome. The outcome was cumulative incidence of 3-month linkage. We estimated cumulative incidence ratios of linkage with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We screened 945 studies; 13 met selection criteria (n = 1 from Canada, n = 1 from Ukraine, n = 11 from the US) and were included after full text review (total 37,549 individuals). The cumulative incidence of 3-month linkage in the intervention group was 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.94) and control group 0.71 (95% CI 0.50-0.90); cIR of linkage for intervention versus control was 1.30 (95% CI 1.13, 1.49). Interventions to improve linkage to care after HIV diagnosis warrant further attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".