Factors impacting HIV testing: a review – perspectives from Australia, Canada, and the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the current global focus on strengthening HIV prevention through greater testing and treatment uptake, it is increasingly salient to identify and address barriers to testing. A review of the published, peer-reviewed literature and national reports from Australia, Canada, and the UK (2003-2013) on barriers to HIV testing was conducted to provide new information relevant to Australia and to complement earlier reviews from Canada and the UK. A systematic database search using keywords and a set of inclusion criteria yielded 36 studies (Australia = 13; Canada = 6; and the UK = 17). In addition 17 unpublished reports were included in the review. Our study uses a novel, comprehensive framework to describe barriers to HIV testing, and thus contributes to moving beyond the traditional patient-provider-system categorization. Within that framework, barriers are categorized as either intrapersonal (reported in 15 studies), interpersonal (21), or extrapersonal (16) and conceptualized within wider sociocultural and structural contexts. People's abilities and motivations to test (intrapersonal factors) are influenced by a host of interconnected factors spanning relationship (interpersonal) and broader socioeconomic, political and cultural (extrapersonal) factors. We suggest that the relative effects of interventions targeting barriers to HIV testing at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels are limited by the extent to which the social determinants of health are addressed. The framework may also lend itself to thinking about the enabling factors for HIV testing, and future research may investigate the application of that framework for strategizing the most effective response. Future studies should also capture the lived experiences of barriers to HIV testing experienced by patients, especially in populations which are hard to reach based on social and geographic distance. Context-specific studies to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of various interventions proposed in the literature to address barriers to HIV testing are needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".