HIV testing during the Canadian immigration medical examination: a national survey of designated medical practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV testing is mandatory for individuals wishing to immigrate to Canada. Since the Designated Medical Practitioners (DMPs) who perform these tests may have varying experience in HIV and time constraints in their clinical practices, there may be variability in the quality of pre- and posttest counseling provided. We surveyed DMPs regarding HIV testing, counseling, and immigration inadmissibility. A 16-item survey was mailed to all DMPs across Canada (N = 203). The survey inquired about DMP characteristics, knowledge of HIV, attitudes and practices regarding inadmissibility and counseling, and interest in continuing medical education. There were a total of 83 respondents (41%). Participants frequently rated their knowledge of HIV diagnostics, cultural competency, and HIV/AIDS service organizations as "fair" (40%, 43%, and 44%, respectively). About 25%, 46%, and 11% of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the statements "HIV infected individuals pose a danger to public health and safety," "HIV-positive immigrants cause excessive demand on the healthcare system," and "HIV seropositivity is a reasonable ground for denial into Canada," respectively. Language was cited as a barrier to counseling, which focused on transmission risks (46% discussed this as "always" or "often") more than coping and social support (37%). There was a high level of interest (47%) in continuing medical education in this area. There are areas for improvement regarding DMPs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices about HIV infection, counseling, and immigration criteria. Continuing medical education and support for DMPs to facilitate practice changes could benefit newcomers who test positive through the immigration process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".