Risk Behavior Disclosure During HIV Test Counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individualized risk assessments during HIV testing are an integral component of prevention counseling, a currently recommended behavioral intervention for patients in high-risk settings. Additionally, aggregate risk assessment data are the source of aggregate behavioral statistics that inform prevention programs and allocation of resources. Consequently, inaccurate or incomplete risk behavior disclosure during test counseling may impact the efficacy of the counseling intervention, as well as bias aggregate behavioral statistics. To quantify client-reported accuracy during the risk assessment and identify barriers and facilitators to risk behavior disclosure, we interviewed young men accessing HIV testing services in a southeastern United States city using mixed methodology. Data were collected from August 2007 to April 2008. Based on data collected via an audio and computer-assisted self-interview (n = 203), over 30% of men reported that they were not accurate during the risk assessment. Participants reported numerous interpersonal facilitators to complete disclosure. During qualitative interviews (n = 25), participants revealed that many did not understand the purpose of the risk assessment. Findings suggest that risk assessments completed during HIV test counseling may be incomplete. Modifications to the risk assessment process, including better explaining the role of the risk assessment in prevention counseling, may increase the validity of the data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".