A Systematic Review of Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis HIV Adherence Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Clinical trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection have established its efficacy as upwards of 99%. Despite this, the effectiveness of this medication has been shown to be diminished by individual factors, such as medication adherence. We completed a systematic review to identify and describe interventions to improve oral PrEP adherence. Overall, 16 articles were located. Two of the articles reported on results from the same trial and were collapsed for analysis, bringing the total to 15 studies. Twelve unique PrEP adherence interventions were tested, with the most common intervention being the use of mobile phone technology, which was used in 7 (46%) of the studies. Ten (67%) studies found that medication adherence improved when participants received an intervention to support adherence. Adherence intervention strategies effectively improved PrEP adherence. Further research into PrEP adherence interventions is warranted, particularly among diverse groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".