Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38814951›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Understanding the use of co-design methods for research involving older adults living with HIV: A scoping review protocol.

Paige Brown, Hardeep Singh, Esther Su, Luxey Sirisegaram, Sarah E P Munce, Andrew D Eaton, Alice Zhabokritsky, Stuart McKinlay, Kristina M Kokorelias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paige BrownDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0006-7158-2804
Hardeep SinghDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Esther SuDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0000-5854-5028
Luxey SirisegaramDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sarah E P MunceDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0595-8395
Andrew D EatonFaculty of Social Work-Saskatoon Campus, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1331-1222
Alice ZhabokritskyInfectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Stuart McKinlayDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6460-9307
Kristina M KokoreliasDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-472X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing population of adults aged 50 years or older living with HIV, facing unique challenges in care due to age, minority status, and stigma. Co-design methodologies, aligning with patient-centered care, have potential for informing interventions addressing the complex needs of older adults with HIV. Despite challenges, co-design has shown promise in empowering older individuals to actively participate in shaping their care experiences. The scoping review outlined here aims to identify gaps in existing co-design work with this population, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity based on PROGRESS-Plus characteristics for future patient-oriented research. This scoping review protocol is informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual to explore co-design methods in geriatric HIV care literature. The methodology encompasses six stages: 1) developing research questions, 2) creating a search strategy, 3) screening and selecting evidence, 4) data extraction, 5) data analysis using content analysis, and 6) consultation with key stakeholders, including community partners and individuals with lived experience. The review will involve a comprehensive literature search, including peer-reviewed databases and gray literature, to identify relevant studies conducted in the past 20 years. The inclusive criteria focus on empirical data related to co-design methods in HIV care for individuals aged 50 or older, aiming to inform future research and co-design studies in geriatric HIV care. The study will be limited by the exclusion of papers not published or translated to English. Additionally, the varied terminology used to describe co-design across different research may result in the exclusion of articles using alternative terms. The consultation with key stakeholders will be crucial for translating insights into meaningful co-design solutions for virtual HIV care, aiming to provide a comprehensive synthesis that informs evidence-based strategies and addresses disparities in geriatric HIV care.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsResearch DesignAgedHumansMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38814951
PMCPMC11139262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.