Experiences of HIV/AIDS caregiving by informal caregivers and the experiences of receiving care in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to identify, appraise, and synthesize available evidence on the experiences of informal caregivers providing HIV/AIDS care, as well as the experiences of care received by people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa. INTRODUCTION: PLHIV share the burden of the disease with their informal caregivers throughout their lives. Experiences of HIV/AIDS-related caregiving and care-receiving have a significant impact on the treatment and physiological health outcomes of both caregivers and care recipients. However, there is limited evidence regarding how caregiving approaches and caregiving experiences influence HIV/AIDS care. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative studies on informal caregivers providing HIV/AIDS-related care as well as the experiences of PLHIV receiving care in sub-Saharan Africa. Eligible studies will focus on both the positive and negative experiences of informal caregivers and PLHIV throughout the HIV/AIDS caregiving continuum. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A comprehensive search strategy will be developed to retrieve relevant articles from MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). The review will be conducted by 2 reviewers who will independently perform study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of confidence in the findings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023470996.
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 | 0.086 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.004 |
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".