Willingness to Use the Oral Fluid HIV Rapid Test among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Beijing, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection of HIV infection enables timely care and treatment. However, many men who have sex with men (MSM) remain unaware of their HIV status because they do not or are unable to access HIV testing services. Oral fluid HIV rapid tests have the potential to increase HIV testing. This study is the first to evaluate willingness to use the oral fluid test among MSM in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Beijing from July to October, 2012. Data were collected by self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 262 who participated in the survey, 223(85.1%) reported that they were willing to use the oral fluid HIV rapid test. Willingness to use the oral fluid test was associated with higher education (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-5.10), lack of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with male partners in the past one month (AOR: 2.38; 95% 95%CI: 1.15-4.95), having taken more than 4 HIV tests (AOR: 3.54; 95%CI:1.52-8.28), and having ever heard of the oral fluid HIV rapid test from gay friends or gay organizations (AOR: 3.24, 95%CI: 1.40-7.51). Among those who expressed willingness to use the oral fluid HIV rapid test, the median amount of money they were willing to pay was 8 dollars. Among the 39 participants who were unwilling to use the oral fluid test, 79.5% (31/39) expressed concerns about the accuracy of the oral fluid HIV rapid test results and 17.9%(7/39) reported that they were not familiar with the oral fluid test and did not know how to use such a test. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of MSM in Beijing appear to be willing to use the oral fluid HIV rapid test. Appropriate cost and education measures could help improve acceptance of the oral fluid test.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".