Home collection for frequent HIV testing: acceptability of oral fluids, dried blood spots and telephone results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of bimonthly home oral fluid (OF) and dried blood spot (DBS) collection for HIV testing among high-risk individuals. DESIGN: A total of 241 participants [including men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), and women at heterosexual risk] were recruited from a randomly selected subset of study participants enrolled at four sites in the HIV Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET) cohort, and assigned at random to bimonthly home collection of OF or DBS specimens over a 6 month interval. Participants could select telephone calls or clinic visits to receive HIV test results. METHODS: Bimonthly specimens were tracked for adherence to the schedule, were evaluated for adequacy for testing, and tested using antibody assays and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for DBS. The acceptability of bimonthly home OF and DBS collection and telephone counseling was assessed in an end-of-study questionnaire. RESULTS: The laboratory received 96 and 90% of expected OF and DBS specimens, respectively; 99% of each specimen type was adequate for testing. Almost all (95%) participants chose results disclosure by telephone. The majority of participants (85%) reported that bimonthly testing did not make them worry more about HIV, and almost all (98%) judged that with bimonthly testing their risk behavior remained the same (77%) or became less risky (21%). CONCLUSION: Bimonthly home specimen collection of both OF and DBS with telephone counseling is acceptable and feasible among study participants at high risk. These methods will be useful for the early detection of HIV infection and remote follow-up of research cohort participants in HIV vaccine and prevention trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".