Age-related experiences of diverse older women living with HIV: A scoping review protocol informed by intersectionality.

INTRODUCTION: Older women living with HIV often go unnoticed due to societal biases and stigmas. Despite a rise in cases among older women, there is limited research on the psychosocial factors impacting their experiences. Aging complexities compounded by HIV and menopause affect these women's health, while factors like mental health impact, changing support networks, and ageism with HIV stigma influence their well-being. Existing studies mostly compare older HIV-positive individuals without considering gender and intersectional identities, limiting understanding of their unique experiences. The scarcity of research addressing age-related differences from diverse perspectives delays the development of tailored treatments and interventions. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to comprehensively explore the age-related experiences of older women with HIV through three sub-questions that address (1) Key experiences, medical and social challenges, and strengths; (2) Impact of intersectional identities on their experiences; and (3) Gaps and limitations in current research. METHODS: Utilizing a scoping review approach, the study seeks to map existing literature, employing a theoretical framework rooted in Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (SGBA+). Articles focusing on the age-related experiences of older women living with HIV aged 50 and above will be included. The study selection process will involve two independent reviewers screening articles based on pre-established inclusion criteria. Data extraction and synthesis will follow, analyzing the influence of sex, gender, and other identities on experiences. DISCUSSION: The study's comprehensive approach aims to bridge gaps in understanding older women's HIV experiences, emphasizing intersectionality. While limited to English-language peer-reviewed articles, this review seeks to offer valuable insights for healthcare, policy, and research, potentially fostering positive change in the lives of diverse older women living with HIV.

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

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.

Evaluating the efficacy of artificial intelligence tools for the automation of systematic reviews in cancer research: A systematic review.

To evaluate the performance accuracy and workload savings of artificial intelligence (AI)-based automation tools in comparison with human reviewers in medical literature screening for systematic reviews (SR) of primary studies in cancer research in order to gain insights on improving the efficiency of producing SRs. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO databases were searched from inception to November 30, 2022. Then, forward and backward literature searches were completed, and the experts in this field including the authors of the articles included were contacted for a thorough grey literature search. This SR was registered on PROSPERO (CRD 42023384772). Among the 3947 studies obtained from search, five studies met the preplanned study selection criteria. These five studies evaluated four AI tools: Abstrackr (four studies), RobotAnalyst (one), EPPI-Reviewer (one), and DistillerSR (one). Without missing final included citations, Abstrackr eliminated 20%-88% of titles and abstracts (time saving of 7-86 hours) and 59% of the full-texts (62 h) from human review across four different cancer-related SRs. In comparison, RobotAnalyst (1% of titles and abstracts, 1 h), EPPI Review (38% of titles and abstracts, 58 h; 59% of full-texts, 62 h), DistillerSR (42% of titles and abstracts, 22 h) also provided similar or lower work savings for single cancer-related SRs. AI-based automation tools exhibited promising but varying levels of accuracy and efficiency during the screening process of medical literature for conducting SRs in the cancer field. Until further progress is made and thorough evaluations are conducted, AI tools should be utilized as supplementary aids rather than complete substitutes for human reviewers.