MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056522282 · doi:10.1080/09540121.2014.986050

Factors impacting HIV testing: a review – perspectives from Australia, Canada, and the UK

2014· review· en· W2056522282 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationInterpersonal communicationPsychological interventionPsychologySociocultural evolutionCategorizationMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical scienceNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 In addition 17 unpublished reports were included in the review.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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it