Research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation: Building on a Framework with the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In 2016, the Canada-International HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative established a framework of research priorities in HIV, aging and rehabilitation. Our aim was to review and identify any new emerging priorities from the perspectives of people living with HIV, clinicians, researchers, and representatives from community organizations. Methods We conducted a multi-stakeholder international consultation with people living with HIV, researchers, clinicians and representatives of community-based organizations. Stakeholders convened for a one-day Forum in Manchester, United Kingdom (UK) to discuss research priorities via a web-based questionnaire and facilitated discussions. We analyzed data using conventional content analytical techniques and mapped emerging priorities onto the foundational framework. Results Thirty-five stakeholders from the UK(n = 29), Canada(n = 5) and Ireland(n = 1) attended the Forum, representing persons living with HIV or representatives from community-based organizations(n = 12;34%), researchers or academics(n = 10;28%), service providers(n = 6;17%), clinicians(n = 4;11%); and trainees(n = 4;11%). Five priorities mapped onto the Framework of Research Priorities across three content areas: A–Episodic Health and Disability Aging with HIV (disability, frailty, social participation), B-Rehabilitation Interventions for Healthy Aging across the Lifespan (role, implementation and impact of digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions) and C–Outcome Measurement in HIV and Aging (digital and web-based rehabilitation health technology to measure physical activity). Stakeholders indicated methodological considerations for implementing digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions into research and practice and the importance of knowledge transfer and exchange among the broader community. Conclusion Results highlight the sustained importance of the framework of research priorities and provide further depth and areas of inquiry related to digital and web-based rehabilitation interventions and technology aging with HIV.
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 | 0.331 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".