2020
DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25581
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adolescents and young people at the centre: global perspectives and approaches to transform HIV testing, treatment and care

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further longitudinal review of overall attendance and visit types at comparison clinics in the region is underway by this authorship team. Nonetheless, Girl Champ is consistent with other person-centered and gain-framed efforts to successfully engage AGYW in HIV services [55][56][57].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Further longitudinal review of overall attendance and visit types at comparison clinics in the region is underway by this authorship team. Nonetheless, Girl Champ is consistent with other person-centered and gain-framed efforts to successfully engage AGYW in HIV services [55][56][57].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…In this review, we synthesized and meta-analysed randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of psychosocial interventions on engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes for AYPLHIV. While a growing body of research has attempted to understand drivers of adolescent engagement in HIV care [99][100][101], as well as effective modes of improving health outcomes and reducing sexual risk behaviours in this age group [102,103], our systematic review and meta-analysis represents an important step toward establishing evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes for AYPLHIV.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To start, the implementation science working sub-group invited nominations of possible implementation frameworks to inform harmonization efforts. Three were proposed to guide measurement selection in the consortium: a primarily determinants framework (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; CFIR Damschroder et al, 2009 ), a mostly evaluative framework (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance; RE-AIM Glasgow et al, 1999 ), and a largely process plus determinants framework (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment; EPIS Aarons et al, 2011 ). The working group drafted a summary document describing the objectives, constructs, and associated survey instruments for the three frameworks.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%