Barriers and facilitators of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and use in Canada: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite extensive efforts in HIV prevention, significant barriers to accessing interventions such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) persist in Canada. Although PrEP has demonstrated efficacy in preventing HIV transmission, various structural, social and systemic factors continue to impede its widespread adoption and use. These factors influence the uptake (acceptance and access) and use (adherence and retention) of PrEP. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the existing body of evidence regarding the barriers and facilitators to uptake and use of PrEP in Canada. By identifying these factors, the review aims to inform future research, policy development and interventions to improve PrEP access and its integration into HIV prevention strategies in Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will focus on studies involving HIV-seronegative individuals in Canada who are either eligible for or currently using PrEP as an HIV prevention option. The review will consider barriers and facilitators within services, programmes, policies or practices related to HIV prevention in Canada. Eligible studies will include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational or qualitative designs. Studies that do not address PrEP or HIV prevention, or that involve populations not aligned with the inclusion criteria, will be excluded. The review will involve searching a range of key databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and TRIP, with no language restrictions, and focusing on publications from 2016 onward. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessment and data extraction, using Covidence. Data will be analysed narratively, with a specific focus on subgroup analyses of key populations. The findings will be synthesised to provide an overview of the key themes, trends, and evidence gaps identified within the existing literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This piece of research will not involve human participants and will solely use already published data. Consequently, ethics approval is not necessary. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations and may be of relevance to governmental health agencies and local HIV/AIDS service organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework registries at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69WJA.
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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.008 |
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".