Overviewing a Nurse‐Led, Community‐Based <scp>HIV PEP</scp> Program: Applying the Extant Literature in Frontline Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This clinical concept paper overviews a program to facilitate access to postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. The project, which was a collaborative initiative involving the local School of Nursing, public health unit, AIDS service organization, hospital-based HIV clinic, and an outpatient pharmacy, was implemented to circumvent common barriers to care identified in the literature. In this project, persons who present to one of the two participating clinics after having come, or likely having come, into contact with HIV within the previous 72 hr, are offered rapid HIV testing, also known as point-of-care (POC) testing, to rule out existing HIV infection, and provided with a follow-up appointment booked at the HIV clinic. Clients are also offered comprehensive STI testing, and HIV prevention counseling. The implementation of this collaborative community-based access-to-PEP project demonstrates the application of research to a real-world health care setting, and it is hoped that others will adapt this model to their local setting, enabling ease of access to PEP for members of groups that are disproportionately affected by HIV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".