Willingness to engage in peer-delivered HIV voluntary counselling and testing among people who inject drugs in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (IDU) face unique systemic, social and individual barriers to conventional HIV voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) programmes. Peer-delivered approaches represent a possible alternative to improve rates of testing among this population. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a prospective cohort of IDU in Vancouver, Canada, were collected between December 2011 and May 2012. Bivariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify the prevalence of and factors associated with willingness to receive peer-delivered VCT. RESULTS: Of 600 individuals, 51.5% indicated willingness to receive peer-delivered pretest counselling, 40.7% to receive peer-delivered rapid HIV testing and 42.8% to receive peer-delivered post-test counselling. Multivariate analyses found significant positive associations between willingness for pretest counselling and having used Vancouver's supervised injection facility, Insite, or being a member of VANDU (a local drug user organisation) (all p<0.05). Daily crack smoking and having used Insite were positively associated with willingness to receive peer-delivered HIV testing (p<0.05). Willingness to receive peer-delivered post-test counselling was positively associated with male gender, daily crack smoking, having used Insite and being a member of VANDU (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While not universally acceptable, peer-delivered VCT approaches may improve access to HIV testing among IDU.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".