MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385408449 · doi:10.24875/aidsrev.22000016

The use of the brief symptom inventory among youth living with HIV: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4385408449 on OpenAlexaff
Alyssa Steinbaum, Jacob J. van den Berg, Laura Whiteley, Natasha Richmond, Nicholas Tarantino, Nidhi Bhaskar

Bibliographic record

VenueAids Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryPsycINFOMedicineSexual orientationClinical psychologyPopulationDistressMental healthMEDLINEPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brief symptom inventory (BSI), a 53-item measure that assesses psychological distress, is a popular tool for measuring mental health symptoms among youth living with HIV (YLH) in the United States (US); however, it has been used inconsistently with this population. This scoping review summarizes discrepancies in the use of the BSI to identify opportunities to improve systematism and make recommendations for clinicians and researchers, and highlights correlates of psychological distress among YLH as measured by the BSI. Databases searched included PsycINFO, PubMed, and CENTRAL. Eligible studies that assessed psychological distress using the BSI among YLH, were conducted in the US, and were written in English. Of the 237 articles identified, 57 were selected for inclusion. Studies investigated associations between BSI scores and several variables, including pre- versus post-highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) era, ART adherence, sexual risk behavior, substance use, stigma, social support, self-efficacy, mode of HIV infection, and sexual orientation. There was variation in BSI elements used as outcome measures, sample age ranges, and reporting of mean scores and cutoff t-scores. 89.5% (n = 51) of studies did not report which BSI norms were used in their data analysis, and 68.4% of studies (n = 39) did not report the cut-off t-score value used. Variability in study objectives restricted this study to a scoping review rather than a meta-analysis. Generalizability to non-US settings is another limitation. More consistency in how the BSI is used among YLH is needed to accurately identify distress among YLH and provide tailored interventions to address their unique challenges.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAids ReviewsSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207