Preparing for pre-exposure prophylaxis: perceptions and readiness of Canadian pharmacists for the implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission but has the potential to cause harm if not used properly. Pharmacists are well-positioned to foster PrEP's efficacy but little is known whether they would endorse it as an HIV prevention tool. The objective of the study was to determine Canadian HIV pharmacists' support for PrEP and to identify current barriers to promoting PrEP. Canadian pharmacists with experience in HIV care were invited to complete an online survey about their experiences, opinions, and learning needs regarding PrEP from December 2012 to January 2013. Among the 59 surveys received, 48 met criteria for final analysis. Overall, 33 (69%) respondents would provide education positively supporting the use of PrEP and 26 (54%) believed Health Canada should approve PrEP for use in Canada. Familiarity with the concept of PrEP and practice characteristics examined did not appear to be significantly associated with support for PrEP in univariable analyses. The principal barriers to promoting PrEP included inadequate drug coverage and insufficient knowledge to educate others. Many Canadian HIV pharmacists would endorse PrEP for high-risk patients; however, wider dissemination of information and lower drug costs may be needed to make PrEP more widely promoted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".