Study characteristics on health-related quality of life in older people living with human immunodeficiency virus: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are aging as a result the benefits of combination antiretroviral therapy. AIM To provide descriptions of eligible existing studies on demographics, methodologies, and outcome measures related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the context of HIV and aging. METHODS The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched using the terms HIV, age, and HRQoL to find studies published between January 1995 and June 2022. Key variables of the eligible studies were identified and categorized into demographics (e.g. , study sites, study year), methodologies (e.g. , use of conceptual frameworks, measures used), and outcome measures [e.g. , HRQoL, quality of life (QoL)]. The PRISMA 2009 checklist was followed. RESULTS A total of 68 published studies involving 53504 participants were included. The majority of the studies (55.88%) were conducted in North America, with relatively few studies conducted in Africa. The median age of participants was 51.0 years (IQR = 11.0). Over one-third (32.56%) of all participants were older people living with HIV aged 50 years and older Four studies included only older female participants, and six studies included only men who have sex with men. Outcome measures were assessed as HRQoL (26.47%) or QoL (36.76%). Overall, data from African studies, older women living with HIV, socioeconomic status (e.g. , employment, income, education), sexual behavioral risks, theoretical frameworks used, and follow-up studies were limited. CONCLUSION This narrative review highlights imbalances and gaps in research on HRQoL in the context of HIV and aging, providing direction for future studies in this area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".