Barriers to HIV counselling and testing uptake by health workers in three public hospitals in Free State Province, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent WHO/ILO/UNAIDS guidelines recommend priority access to HIV services for health care workers (HCWs), in order to retain and support HCWs, especially those at risk of occupationally acquired tuberculosis (TB). The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to uptake of HIV counselling and testing (HCT) services for HCWs receiving HCT within occupational health units (OHUs). Questions were included within a larger occupational health survey of a 20% quota sample of HCWs from three public hospitals in Free State Province, South Africa. Of the 978 respondents, nearly 65% believed that their co-workers would not want to know their HIV status. Barriers to accessing HCT at the OHU included ambiguity over whether antiretroviral treatment was available at the OHU (only 51.1% knew), or whether TB treatment was available (55.5% knew). Nearly 40% of respondents perceived that stigma as a barrier. When controlling for age and race, the odds of perceiving HIV stigma in the workplace among patient-care health care workers (PCHWs) were 2.4 times that for non-PCHWs [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.80-3.15]. Of the 692 survey respondents who indicated a reason for not using HIV services at the OHU, 38.9% felt that confidentiality was the reason cited. Among PCHWs, the adjusted odds of expressing concern that confidentiality may not be maintained in the OHU were 2.4 times (95% CI: 1.8-3.2) that of non-PCHWs and were higher among Black [odds ratio (OR): 2.7, CI: 1.7-4.2] and Coloured HCWs (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.6-5.6) as compared to White HCWs, suggesting that stigma and confidentiality concerns are still barriers to uptake of HCT. Campaigns to improve awareness of HCT and TB services offered in the OHUs, address stigma and ensure that the workforce is aware of the confidentiality provisions that are in place are warranted.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".