ArticleAIDS and behavior2024
Ensuring People Living with HIV Inform the Future of HIV Treatment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for a Community-Led Research Agenda.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The HIV treatment landscape in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is rapidly evolving, exemplified by the expansion of differentiated service delivery (DSD) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Long-acting products represent a new frontier that will require a significant redesign of health systems. It is critical to understand service delivery and product preferences of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and ensure evidence generation is guided by community priorities. We conducted a scoping review to identify gaps among preference studies and inform future research. Peer-reviewed articles published from January 2014-May 2022 reporting acceptability or preference data from PLHIV or caregivers for one or more service delivery or product attribute were eligible. Service delivery studies were restricted to LMIC populations while product studies had no geographical restrictions. Based on gaps identified, we consulted advocates to develop community-led research agenda recommendations. Of 6,493 studies identified, 225 studies on service delivery attributes and 47 studies on product preferences were eligible. The most frequently studied delivery models were integration (n = 59) and technology-based interventions (n = 55). Among product literature, only 15 studies included LMIC populations. Consultation with advocates highlighted the need for research on long-acting products, including among pediatric, pregnant, and breastfeeding PLHIV, PLHIV on second-line regimens, and key populations. Consultation also emphasized the need to understand preferences on clinic visit frequency, side effects, and choice. While the preference literature has expanded, gaps remain around long-acting regimens and their delivery. To fill these gaps, the research agenda must be guided by the priorities of communities of PLHIV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.