‘Drug users stick together’: HIV testing in peer-based drop-in centres among people who inject drugs in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Introduction Although there is a well recognised need for novel approaches to HIV testing, particularly for marginalised populations at high risk for HIV infection, there remains a dearth of information on the acceptability of peer-based HIV testing among people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: Between July 2011 and June 2012, 22 in-depth interviews were conducted with PWID participating in the Mitsampan Community Research Project in Bangkok, Thailand. Semi-structured interviews explored willingness to access rapid HIV testing delivered by a healthcare professional or a trained peer within peer-based drop-in centres. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: All participants indicated interest in accessing rapid HIV testing by a healthcare professional at peer-based drop-in centres due to the advantage of receiving immediate results. Experiencing stigma and discrimination by healthcare workers and wanting to avoid administrative barriers in hospitals were also reported as reasons for why PWID preferred HIV testing in peer-based settings. Peer support and shared lived experiences were repeatedly mentioned as benefits of peer-based testing. However, some concerns regarding peer-delivered testing were expressed and included a fear of peers' violating confidentiality and concerns regarding peers' qualifications for conducting an HIV test. CONCLUSION: Many PWID in this study sample noted the value of a peer-based approach to receiving testing and indicated their willingness to access rapid HIV testing in peer-based drop-in centres. The findings from this study highlight the potential for novel peer-based methods to complement existing HIV services in an effort to improve access to testing among this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".