Quality of life of children and adolescents living with HIV in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and adolescents living with HIV (CALHIV) encounters compromised health and well-being especially in developing countries. Understanding the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of CALHIV living in India is vital in planning and developing comprehensive care approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore and examine the HRQOL of CALHIV in India. Five electronic databases were searched, retrieving 2,729 citations with a final eight studies that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. The included studies predominantly evaluated quality of life using the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory, with a mean self-reported HRQOL score of 77.62 (95% CI 72.91–82.34, I2 = 93%). HRQOL of CALHIV observed to be better than other chronically ill children. However, CALHIV demonstrated lower HRQOL than the matched general population. Younger age children and boys reported better HRQOL. Poor socio-economic status, immunological status and advanced clinical stages noted to be adversely affecting HRQOL. HRQOL of children reared in institutional care reported to better or in par with family reared children. The review highlights the sparse evidence investigating the HRQOL of children with HIV in India, and the need for further well-designed studies in this population. A population-specific holistic-care approach recommended to be benefiting the well-being of CALHIV.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".