Preferences for rapid point-of-care HIV testing in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid point-of-care (POC) testing for HIV has been shown to increase the uptake of testing, rates of clients receiving test results, numbers of individuals aware of their status and timely access to care for those who test positive. In addition, several studies have shown that rapid POC testing for HIV is highly acceptable to clients in a variety of clinical and community-based health care settings. Most acceptability studies conducted in North America, however, have been conducted in large, urban environments where concentrations of HIV testing sites and testing innovations are greatest. Using a survey of client preferences at a sexual health clinic in Halifax, Nova Scotia, we suggest that HIV test seekers living in a region outside of Canada's major urban HIV epicentres find rapid POC testing highly acceptable. We compare the results of the Halifax survey with existing acceptability studies of rapid POC HIV testing in North America and suggest ways in which it might be of particular benefit to testing clients and potential clients in Nova Scotia and other regions of Canada that currently have few opportunities for anonymous or rapid testing. Overall, we found that rapid POC HIV testing was highly desirable at this study site and may serve to overcome many of the challenges associated with HIV prevention and testing outside of well-resourced metropolitan environments.
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) | 0.004 | 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".