Strengthening implementation guidelines for HIV service delivery: Considerations for future evidence generation and synthesis
PLoS Medicine, ISSN: 1549-1676, Vol: 20, Issue: 3 March, Page: e1004168
2023
- 1Citations
- 21Usage
- 20Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- Usage21
- Downloads18
- Abstract Views3
- Captures20
- Readers20
- 20
Article Description
With highly effective diagnostic, prevention, and treatment innovations available in HIV programs globally, the HIV field is increasingly turning to implementation and service delivery questions. • Developing guidelines for implementation of interventions is markedly challenged by limitations in primary implementation research design and reporting, as well as difficulties in application of evidence synthesis and guideline development tools originally developed to appraise evidence for efficacy. • Drawing on the processes of developing the WHO HIV service delivery guidelines for testing and treatment between 2018 and 2021, we present challenges and identify areas for future methodological development to improve the incorporation of implementation research across the full spectrum of the evidence generation continuum. • We highlight gaps in design, measurement, and reporting of primary implementation research, as well as underreporting of relevant program data. • We describe how routine application of current evidence synthesis tools may not sufficiently answer implementation questions and propose that methodological tools be optimized to identify high-quality non-randomized evidence and reduce penalization for heterogeneity in meta-analysis of implementation research. • These findings serve as a blueprint for further methodological work to strengthen existing evidence synthesis and guideline development tools for HIV service delivery guidelines and for implementation research more broadly.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85150751310&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004168; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36877738; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004168; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/oa_4/1889; https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2885&context=oa_4; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004168; https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004168
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know