Patient perspectives on opt-out HIV screening in a Guyanese emergency department
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, the WHO recommended that healthcare providers in areas of a generalised HIV epidemic perform HIV testing on all adults and adolescents presenting for healthcare. Studies regarding patient acceptability of opt-out testing, however, have reported wide variation in acceptance rates. This study examines patient-reported acceptability of such testing at the emergency department (ED) of Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation, the largest public hospital in Guyana. In June 2010, a convenience sample of 343 non-critical adult patients who presented to the ED were interviewed regarding potential acceptance of opt-out HIV testing, with 75.5% (95% CI 70.5-80.0%) stating they would accept testing should it be implemented in the ED. Of 12 patient characteristics, 3 had significant differences in acceptance rates on multivariate analysis: age; gender; and previous HIV testing. In this study, potential reasons for declining testing were also examined. The highest percentage of patient agreement was with the statements 'I have had an HIV test recently enough' (84%, 95% CI 74.0-91.4%) and 'I am not at risk for HIV/AIDS' (83%, 95% CI 73.0-90.4%). The results of this study indicate that the majority of patients in this setting would accept opt-out HIV testing, although some still had concerns regarding testing. Opt-out testing in the ED has the potential to facilitate national goals for increased testing and diagnosis.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it