Factors Affecting Knowledge of Sexually Transmitted Infection Transmissibility in Healthcare Providers: Results From a National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: The objectives of this study were to examine healthcare providers' knowledge of the transmissibility of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and identify knowledge determinants. Study: Questionnaires were completed March through May 2004 by a representative sample of Canadian healthcare providers, yielding a corrected response rate of 50.8% for physicians. STI workers returned 236 questionnaires. Results: For physicians, the distribution of HIV estimates was positively skewed (mode = 10%), whereas chlamydia estimates were widely dispersed. STI workers showed a trimodal (0%, 50%, and 100%) distribution of HIV estimates and a negatively skewed distribution of chlamydia estimates (mode = 100%). Overall, 1.4% (HIV) and 5.8% (chlamydia) of respondents gave estimates close to the actual transmission probabilities. More years of medical experience and higher estimates of STI prevalence predicted higher transmissibility estimates (95% confidence intervals). Conclusions: That only a small percentage of healthcare providers are aware of the actual transmissibility of HIV and chlamydia has implications for improving medical and sexual health training. A study of healthcare providers found that physicians are aware that HIV is not as easily transmitted as chlamydia; however, they lack knowledge of chlamydia transmissibility. Sexually transmitted infection workers are uncertain of HIV transmissibility and overestimate chlamydia transmissibility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".