Development of a core patient-reported outcome set for use in HIV care at the individual patient level in Montreal: protocol for a two-phased multimethod project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is international interest in using patient-reported outcome measures in HIV care to improve the well-being of people with HIV, but the prioritisation of specific outcomes and measures remains unclear. This project's objective is to engage both people with HIV and healthcare, social and community service providers to develop a French and English-language core set of patient-reported outcomes and measures for use in HIV care at the patient level in Montreal (Canada). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multimethod project will follow guidance from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative and involve two phases. Phase 1 will see the selection of the core set of outcomes (ie, the health concepts to target) and include a rapid scoping review to inform a Delphi study with a panel of 50 people with HIV and providers in Montreal. It will end with a multidisciplinary consensus meeting to make final decisions on the outcomes. Phase 2 will be devoted to choosing the measures to assess the selected outcomes. It will include a systematic search for instruments, an appraisal of the quality and feasibility of the identified instruments and a consensus meeting for the final selection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board (REB) approval was obtained on 9 December 2024, from the institutional REB of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (reference number: 2024-9695). Findings will primarily be disseminated to (1) healthcare and social service providers through academic rounds and a provincial continuing education programme for HIV clinicians; (2) to people with HIV through partner community organisations and (3) a range of stakeholders at local, national and international conferences and through peer-reviewed publications.
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 | 0.223 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.012 |
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".