HIV testing in antenatal care: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwives' attitudes and practices regarding antenatal HIV testing, including integration of testing into routine antenatal care, were analysed using a self-administered structured questionnaire. This was completed by hospital and community-based midwives in an area of high HIV prevalence. In total, 162 responses were received. Most midwives (71%) agreed that HIV testing is an integral part of antenatal care but 61% also believed that only individuals with a counselling qualification should offer tests. Fifty seven per cent had attended a recent course about the management of HIV infection in pregnancy. Midwives who had attended a course were more likely to agree with integrated testing (odds ratio 5.2, 95% confidence interval 2.0–13.5). Midwives qualified between 5 and 9years ago were less likely than more recently qualified or more experienced midwives to offer tests, and this was not explained by differences in access to educational courses. Midwives' attitudes towards antenatal HIV testing are generally favourable. Despite an observed increase in uptake rates, many midwives continue to believe that only qualified counsellors should offer tests. All midwives should receive ongoing education that emphasizes the changing management of HIV infection in pregnancy and encourages testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".