P2-S5.06 Behavioural interventions for reducing HIV infection in workers in occupational settings, a Cochrane systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background HIV in the workforce has a negative impact on economic growth and development of affected countries. The workplace provides an important avenue to prevent HIV by providing easy access to workers who might have similar high risk sexual behaviour because of the nature of their work. Objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of behavioural interventions on high risk sexual behaviour to prevent HIV among workers. Methods We searched electronic databases to locate studies. Only randomised control studies in occupational settings or among workers identified as high risk groups were included. The outcome measures were: indicators of high risk sexual behaviours, uptake of Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT), and incident cases of HIV. We excluded health workers, sex workers, injection drug users and Men who have sex with men because these are already in other reviews. Results We included 4 studies but we had incomplete data from one. All the studies were from developing countries in Asia and Africa with a total of 7994 participants. We grouped the studies in the following comparisons: Uptake of VCT was increased when provided in workplace compared to voucher for testing only, RR=14.0 (95% CI 11.8 to 16.7), HIV incidence was not reduced, RR=1.4 (95% CI 0.7 to 2.7). Education caused a non-significant decrease in sex with extra partner RR=0.7 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.8) and unprotected sex, RR=0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.4). More intensive Information, motivation and behavioural (IMB) skills training increased the use of condom, RR=2.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 4.1) and decreased sex with commercial sex workers, RR=0.8 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.96) in a very high risk group of truck drivers. Conclusion VCT might not be effective in reducing HIV incidence in workplace intervention, and delivering voluntary counselling and testing on-site at workplace increases the uptake of VCT. However, education, and Information, motivation and behavioural (IMB) skills training might be worthwhile in reducing risky sexual behaviour and increasing condom use, especially when delivered with high intensity in the workplace.
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 | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.003 |
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".