From conceptualising to modelling structural determinants and interventions in HIV transmission dynamics models: a scoping review and methodological framework for evidence-based analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Including structural determinants (e.g. criminalisation, stigma, inequitable gender norms) in dynamic HIV transmission models is important to help quantify their population-level impacts and guide implementation of effective interventions that reduce the burden of HIV and inequalities thereof. However, evidence-based modelling of structural determinants is challenging partly due to a limited understanding of their causal pathways and few empirical estimates of their effects on HIV acquisition and transmission. Methods We conducted a scoping review of dynamic HIV transmission modelling studies that evaluated the impacts of structural determinants, published up to August 28, 2023, using Ovid Embase and Medline online databases. We appraised studies on how models represented exposure to structural determinants and causal pathways. Building on this, we developed a new methodological framework and recommendations to support the incorporation of structural determinants in transmission dynamics models and their analyses. We discuss the data and analyses that could strengthen the evidence used to inform these models. Results We identified 17 HIV modelling studies that represented structural determinants and/or interventions, including incarceration of people who inject drugs (number of studies [n] = 5), violence against women (n = 3), HIV stigma (n = 1), and housing instability (n = 1), among others (n = 7). Most studies (n = 10) modelled exposures dynamically. Almost half (8/17 studies) represented multiple exposure histories (e.g. current, recent, non-recent exposure). Structural determinants were often assumed to influence HIV indirectly by influencing mediators such as contact patterns, condom use, and antiretroviral therapy use. However, causal pathways’ assumptions were sometimes simple, with few mediators explicitly represented in the model, and largely based on cross-sectional associations. Although most studies calibrated models using HIV epidemiological data, less than half (7/17) also fitted or cross-validated to data on the prevalence, frequency, or effects of exposure to structural determinants. Conclusions Mathematical models can play a crucial role in elucidating the population-level impacts of structural determinants and interventions on HIV. We recommend the next generation of models reflect exposure to structural determinants dynamically and mechanistically, and reproduce the key causal pathways, based on longitudinal evidence of links between structural determinants, mediators, and HIV. This would improve the validity and usefulness of predictions of the impacts of structural determinants and interventions.
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 | 0.258 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".