20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review study protocol of literature from 2018 to end of 2022 of stated preference studies about HIV care and prevention services around the world

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There are currently over 38 million individuals around the globe living with the HIV and AIDS. As many HIV prevention and care services emerging for public use services become available to a wider audience, there is a growing need for more information about willingness to engage in these care and services. Stated preference research methods have been shown to be useful methods to help predict factors that influence health behaviours in the future.

          Research question

          This is a systematic review of findings from stated preference studies regarding the choices of people living with HIV or people at risk of contracting HIV to engage in HIV prevention or care.

          Methods

          Our team plans to compile stated preference studies studying the choice to engage in HIV prevention or care services. Studies will be included from 1 January 2018 until 28 October 2022. There will be no restrictions on the language or location of the study. We will search databases including PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Tufts CEA registry and CINAHL. Two researchers will review each article’s title, abstract, then full-text and finally extract relevant data based on a predetermined process. Data will be presented in a narrative review and in an exploratory meta-analysis by subgroups of studies.

          Ethics and dissemination of research

          There is no need for an ethical review process of this study since all data used is available publicly. The findings of this study will be reported in relevant conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42023397785.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

          Background Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. Methods A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. Results The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. Conclusion A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health.

            To assess the utility of an acronym, place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital ("PROGRESS"), in identifying factors that stratify health opportunities and outcomes. We explored the value of PROGRESS as an equity lens to assess effects of interventions on health equity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination

              Background Monitoring the reasons why a considerable number of people do not receive recommended vaccinations allows identification of important trends over time, and designing and evaluating strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Existing validated measures assessing vaccine hesitancy focus primarily on confidence in vaccines and the system that delivers them. However, empirical and theoretical work has stated that complacency (not perceiving diseases as high risk), constraints (structural and psychological barriers), calculation (engagement in extensive information searching), and aspects pertaining to collective responsibility (willingness to protect others) also play a role in explaining vaccination behavior. The objective was therefore to develop a validated measure of these 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. Methods and findings Three cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 uses factor analysis to develop an initial scale and assesses the sub-scales’ convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity (N = 1,445, two German convenience-samples). In Study 2, a sample representative regarding age and gender for the German population (N = 1,003) completed the measure for vaccination in general and for specific vaccinations to assess the potential need for a vaccine-specific wording of items. Study 3 compared the novel scale’s performance with six existing measures of vaccine hesitancy (N = 350, US convenience-sample). As an outcome, a long (15-item) and short (5-item) 5C scale were developed as reliable and valid indicators of confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. The 5C sub-scales correlated with relevant psychological concepts, such as attitude (confidence), perceived personal health status and invulnerability (complacency), self-control (constraints), preference for deliberation (calculation), and communal orientation (collective responsibility), among others. The new scale provided similar results when formulated in a general vs. vaccine-specific way (Study 2). In a comparison of seven measures the 5C scale was constantly among the scales that explained the highest amounts of variance in analyses predicting single vaccinations (between 20% and 40%; Study 3). The present studies are limited to the concurrent validity of the scales. Conclusions The 5C scale provides a novel tool to monitor psychological antecedents of vaccination and facilitates diagnosis, intervention design and evaluation. Its short version is suitable for field settings and regular global monitoring of relevant antecedents of vaccination.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                28 March 2024
                : 14
                : 3
                : e072661
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Health Promotion Sciences , Ringgold_48710The University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health , Tucson, Arizona, USA
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Epidemiology , Ringgold_48710The University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health , Tucson, Arizona, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Maiya G Block Ngaybe; mgblock@ 123456arizona.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1251-4618
                Article
                bmjopen-2023-072661
                10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072661
                10982804
                38548370
                32e98cb0-d391-4f3e-92fe-009439ad8491
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 21 February 2023
                : 12 February 2024
                Categories
                HIV/AIDS
                1506
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                public health,international health services,protocols & guidelines,hiv & aids
                Medicine
                public health, international health services, protocols & guidelines, hiv & aids

                Comments

                Comment on this article