Prenatal Screening for HIV in Nova Scotia: Survey of Postpartum Women and Audit of Current Prenatal Screening Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for screening for HIV infections in Nova Scotia recommend an opt-in approach in which patients are counselled and consent to testing. The objectives of the present study were to measure adherence to these recommendations, to explore women's knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours concerning HIV screening, and to compare these results with prenatal screening practices for rubella, hepatitis B and group B streptococcus. METHODS: All women who gave birth consecutively during a seven-week period were recruited. Study participants were interviewed to determine their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs concerning prenatal screening. Hospital and laboratory records were reviewed for information concerning prenatal screening and perinatal treatment to audit screening practices. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients were enrolled in the study, representing 58% of those eligible. The HIV screening rate was 72%, compared with 95% for rubella, 89% for hepatitis B and 24% for group B streptococcus. Of the participants tested for HIV, 80% were aware of being tested. Of all the study participants, 17% indicated having received pretest counselling about HIV, 56% volunteered to be tested for HIV, 78% received the test results, and 3.8% received post-test counselling. More participants preferred an opt-out approach to HIV screening (50%), where testing is routinely performed on everyone, rather than the opt-in approach (43%). Participants displayed a similar preference for screening for the other infections. INTERPRETATION: HIV prenatal testing rates in Nova Scotia are comparable with those of other provinces that recommend an opt-in approach, but are lower than testing rates for opt-out programs. Most study participants were not screened using the recommended opt-in approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".