Voluntary HIV Testing Among Inmates: Sociodemographic, Behavioral Risk, and Attitudinal Correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine the prevalence and correlates of self-reported HIV testing among inmates in correctional centers in Ontario, Canada. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a stratified random sample of 597 male and female adult inmates. The participation rate was 89%. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression were used to analyze HIV testing. Fifty-eight percent had ever been tested, and 21% had voluntarily tested while incarcerated in the past year. Having ever been tested was more common among those at risk for HIV through injection drug use (IDU) or sexual behavior. Testing while incarcerated in the past year was independently associated with being single (OR = 2.6), frequent IDU (OR = 4.0), not having casual sex partners prior to incarceration (OR = 0.53), a history of hepatitis (OR = 2.4), previous HIV testing (OR = 3.7), a close relationship with an HIV-positive person in the outside community (OR = 1.7), knowing an HIV-positive person inside (OR = 2.7), a perceived chance of being infected during incarceration (OR = 2.2), and support of mandatory testing (OR = 2.0). The predominant motivations for testing while incarcerated were IDU or fears of infection inside, possibly through contact with blood, during fights, or even by casual contact. Voluntary HIV testing in prison should be encouraged, and inmates should receive appropriate counseling and information to allow realistic assessment of risk.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".