Tuberculosis patients' reasons for, and suggestions to address non-uptake of HIV testing: a cross-sectional study in the Free State Province, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: South Africa endorses the global policy shift from primarily client-initiated voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) to routine/provider-initiated testing and counselling (PITC). The reason for this policy shift has been to facilitate uptake of HIV testing amongst at-risk populations in high-prevalence settings. Despite ostensible implementation of routine/PITC, uptake amongst tuberculosis (TB) patients in this country remains a challenge. This study presents the reasons that non-tested TB patients offered for their refusal of HIV testing and reflects on all TB patients' suggestions as to how this situation may be alleviated. METHODS: In February-March 2008, a cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst 600 TB patients across 61 primary health care facilities in four sub-districts in the Free State. Patient selection was done proportionally to the numbers registered at each facility in 2007. Data were subjected to bivariate tests and content analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: Almost one-third (32.5%) of the respondents reported that they had not undertaken HIV testing, with the most often offered explanation being that they were 'undecided' (37.0%). Other self-reported reasons for non-uptake included: fear (e.g. of testing HIV-positive, 19.0%); perception of being at low risk of HIV infection (13.4%); desire first to deal with TB 'on its own' (12.5%); and because HIV testing had not been offered to them (12.0%). Many patients expressed the need for support and motivation not only from health care workers (33.3%), but also from their significant others (56.6%). Patients further expressed a need for (increased) dissemination of TB-HIV information by health care workers (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients did not undergo HIV testing for various patient-/individual-related reasons. Non-uptake of HIV testing was also due to health system limitations such as the non-offer of HIV testing. Other measures may be necessary to supplement routine/provider-initiation of HIV testing. From the TB patient's perspective, there is a need for (improved) dissemination of information on the TB-HIV link. Patients also require (repeated) motivation and support to undergo HIV testing, the onus for which rests not only on the public health authority and health care workers, but also on other people in the patients' social support networks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".