Systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of depression on ART adherence among women living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is a very common psychiatric disorder in worldwide. Globally, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is highly prevalent among women, and are disproportionately affected by depression. Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) adherence which could highly be affected by depression is yet to be explored effectively. Depression affects overall poor HIV clinical outcomes, socioeconomic and social interactions. However, it is not well understood specifically how depression affects ART adherence in women living with HIV (WLWHIV). Investigating the effects of depression on ART adherence is critical in order to develop nuanced new evidence to address non-adherence in WLWHIV. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis on the correlation between depression and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among women living with HIV in the globe. METHOD: Using population, exposed and outcome approach, we searched Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Psych info, Web of science and google scholar for cohort and cross-sectional studies globally. The search strategy was structured comprising terms associated with antiretroviral therapy and adherence, women living with HIV and depression. We evaluated the paper quality, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales (NOS). The fixed effect model was used to analysis the effect of depression on ART adherence. RESULT: A total of 8 articles comprise 6474 participants were included in this study. There were controversial findings related to the effect of depression to ART adherence. Among three cross-sectional study, one article demonstrating, depression was associated with ART adherence. Of the five cohort studies, four cohort studies reported association. The overall pooled estimated effect of depression on ART adherence was 1.02 [RR = 1.015 with 95% CI (1.004, 1.026)] with a p-value of 0.005. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Depression was the risk factor for ART adherence among women living with HIV. It is therefore, necessary for clinician to note this and perform screening for ART adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was developed with prospero registration: CRD42023415935.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".