HIV Testing and Care in Canadian Aboriginal Youth: A community based mixed methods study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: HIV infection is a serious concern in the Canadian Aboriginal population, particularly among youth; however, there is limited attention to this issue in research literature. The purpose of this national study was to explore HIV testing and care decisions of Canadian Aboriginal youth. METHODS: A community-based mixed-method design incorporating the Aboriginal research principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) was used. Data were collected through surveys (n = 413) and qualitative interviews (n = 28). Eleven community-based organizations including urban Aboriginal AIDS service organizations and health and friendship centres in seven provinces and one territory assisted with the recruitment of youth (15 to 30 years). RESULTS: Average age of survey participants was 21.5 years (median = 21.0 years) and qualitative interview participants was 24.4 years (median = 24.0). Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents (210 of 413 youth) and 25 of 28 interview participants had been tested for HIV. The most common reason to seek testing was having sex without a condom (43.6%) or pregnancy (35.4%) while common reasons for not testing were the perception of being low HIV risk (45.3%) or not having had sex with an infected person (34.5%). Among interviewees, a contributing reason for not testing was feeling invulnerable. Most surveyed youth tested in the community in which they lived (86.5%) and 34.1% visited a physician for the test. The majority of surveyed youth (60.0%) had tested once or twice in the previous 2 years, however, about one-quarter had tested more than twice. Among the 26 surveyed youth who reported that they were HIV-positive, 6 (23.1%) had AIDS at the time of diagnosis. Delays in care-seeking after diagnosis varied from a few months to seven years from time of test. CONCLUSION: It is encouraging that many youth who had tested for HIV did so based on a realistic self-assessment of HIV risk behaviours; however, for others, a feeling of invulnerability was a barrier to testing. For those who tested positive, there was often a delay in accessing health services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».