Mandatory reporting of HIV infection and opt-out prenatal screening for HIV infection: effect on testing rates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mandatory reporting of HIV infection to public health authorities, although now common, may deter people from undergoing testing. We examined HIV testing frequency in Alberta before and after mandatory reporting was implemented. We also examined the effect on testing rates among pregnant women when Alberta adopted an opt-out approach to prenatal HIV screening. METHODS: Using data from the Provincial Laboratory for Public Health, we determined the number of HIV tests done between Jan. 1, 1993, and Dec. 31, 2000, for males and females in Alberta. We used data from the Canadian Blood Services laboratories to obtain the number of tests conducted as part of the opt-out prenatal HIV testing program. Reporting of HIV infection became mandatory on May 1, 1998, and opt-out prenatal HIV testing was introduced on Sept. 1, 1998. RESULTS: Among males, the average annual percent increase in the number of HIV tests was 4.0% for the period before mandatory testing, as compared with 4.3% for the period after mandatory reporting was implemented; the difference in yearly trend was significant (p < 0.001). Among females, the average annual percent increase in the number of HIV tests was 9.2% for the period before mandatory reporting. In the month immediately following the adoption of opt-out prenatal HIV testing, the rate increased by 28%. Between 1999 and 2000, the average annual percent increase in the number of HIV tests among females was 1.4%. INTERPRETATION: The introduction of mandatory reporting of HIV infection did not appear to have a deterrent effect on rates of HIV testing. The implementation of an opt-out prenatal HIV testing policy resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of females being tested for HIV infection.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".