Prospective Cohort Study of HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Sexual Assault Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of standardized programs for HIV counselling and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in the setting of sexual assault. METHODS: We conducted an 18-month prospective cohort study assessing universal HIV counselling for all sexual assault survivors presenting to 18 Ontario Sexual Assault Treatment Centres. HIV PEP was universally offered to those at risk of HIV infection (high risk or unknown risk) presenting < or =72 h after the assault, using Combivir one pill and Kaletra three capsules twice a day for 28 days. Those who accepted HIV PEP were monitored via a schedule of frequent follow ups. The primary outcomes were acceptance and completion rates, and their predictors were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Adverse events (AE) were categorized using a standardized toxicity grading system. RESULTS: Of the 900 evaluable participants eligible for PEP, 798 (69 at high risk and 729 at unknown risk) were offered treatment. Acceptance rates were 66.7% (n=46) and 41.3% (n=301) for participants at high risk and unknown risk, respectively. Participants at high risk were 2.2 times more likely to accept PEP than those at unknown risk (adjusted odds ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.2-4.0; P=0.01). Overall, 23.9% high-risk (n=11) and 33.2% unknown-risk participants (n=100) completed PEP (P=0.20). Predictors of acceptance and completion included assault by a stranger and participant anxiety. AEs were common, with 77.1% of participants reporting grade 2-4 symptoms. CONCLUSION: A province-wide standardized program of universal HIV counselling and offering of PEP to sexual assault survivors with frequent follow up was successfully implemented and feasible.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".