Prenatal HIV tests. Routine testing or informed choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how prenatal care providers responded to a new provincial policy of offering HIV testing to all prenatal patients, and to determine factors associated with self-reported high testing rates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: Outpatient practices in three Ontario health-planning regions. PARTICIPANTS: Prenatal care providers: 784 family physicians, 200 obstetricians, and 103 midwives were sent questionnaires and were eligible to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported testing of 80% or more prenatal patients ("high testers") and associated practice characteristics, attitudes, and counseling practices. RESULTS: Response rate was 57% (622/1087): 43% of respondents were high testers. Family physicians were most likely and midwives least likely to be high testers. High testers tended to report that they had adequate knowledge of HIV testing, that HIV risk among their patients warranted testing all of them, and that testing should be routine. Encouraging women to test and not providing written information or choice were independently associated with high testing rates. CONCLUSION: Strongest predictors of high prenatal HIV testing rates were attitudes and practices that favoured a routine approach to testing and that placed little emphasis on informed consent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".