Barriers to HIV-Testing Among Hispanics in the United States: Analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2000
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
Data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were analyzed to explore barriers to HIV testing, and intentions to be tested among a nationally representative sample (n = 4,261) of the different Hispanic subgroups living in the United States. Weighted proportions and variances accounting for the complex sample design of the NHIS were estimated using the Taylor series linearization method. Regression estimates are expressed as odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Two thirds of sampled Hispanics had never been tested for HIV (excluding blood donations) and 88% expressed no intention to do so in the near future. Many of the factors that influence the likelihood of having been tested in the past also impact on future HIV testing intentions including age, Hispanic subgroup, high-risk status, and self-perceived HIV risk. Compared to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 1.1-2.3) and Mexican/Americans (OR = 1.61, 1.1-2.3) were more likely to never have been tested and Cubans were notably more likely to report negative future testing intentions (OR = 5.63, 2.5-12.8). Among Hispanics who reported high-risk status or high/medium self-perceived HIV risk, more than one quarter had never undergone testing and expressed no intention of doing so in the near future. Recognition of the HIV testing barriers identified in this study is valuable for the development and refinement of current strategies that aim to increase HIV testing practices in the heterogeneous U.S. Hispanic population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it