Acceptance of a Rapid Herpes Test in Labour: Survey of Attitudes of Patients and Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptability to pregnant women and their health care providers of a rapid test for genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) in labour. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with outpatient pregnant women and their health care providers (obstetricians, family physicians and midwives) at BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre. RESULTS: Of pregnant women approached, 207 (92%) completed the survey; 90% reported no history of genital herpes. Rapid HSV testing in labour was acceptable to 85% of pregnant women. Among the 133 women who were planning a vaginal delivery, 63% were willing to consider delivery by Caesarean section and 53% were willing to consider intrapartum anti-viral medications if HSV was present in the genital tract. Of 51 health care providers surveyed, 98% indicated interest in knowing if their patient had a newly acquired HSV infection, while 84% indicated interest in knowing if the patient had a reactivation of infection. If HSV was detected in their patient's genital tract, 36% indicated they would recommend a Caesarean section, and 25% would consider antiviral medication as an investigational intrapartum treatment. Interestingly, both of these proportions increased if the patient had ruptured membranes for more than four hours. CONCLUSION: Most pregnant women and their health care providers are receptive to the use of a rapid polymerase chain reaction test to detect genital HSV shedding in labour. This supports the development of HSV rapid testing and antiviral therapy trials in the labour setting.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".