‘Drug users stick together’: HIV testing in peer-based drop-in centres among people who inject drugs in Thailand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it