P5.051 “There Are a Million Scenarios to Consider”: Health Care Provider Perspectives on Internet-Based Testing For Sexually Transmitted Infections, HIV, and Hepatitis C in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Online health interventions are integrated within existing systems of sexual health care, however, their perception by health care providers is rarely considered. We sought to understand the opinions of health care providers working in sexual and reproductive health of <i>GetCheckedOnline </i>(GCO), a new internet testing programme for STIs, HIV and Hepatitis C in British Columbia, and how they perceived it integrating with their future practise. <h3>Methods</h3> In 2012, one investigator conducted six focus groups with a total of 49 participants (21 nurses, 12 physicians, 16 other staff); observers in each group took notes, supplemented by audio recordings where possible. Participants were presented with the GCO model and questioned about perceived risks, benefits, utility, and impact on/integration with their practise. Focus group notes were thematically analysed using NVivo and findings validated with observers. <h3>Results</h3> Focus group participants described GCO as an inevitable evolution within and complement to the current system of care, where the benefits of shifting locus of control to patients, addressing testing barriers, and increasing engagement in care may be offset by perpetuating existing inequities for some groups. Participants discussed the potential for personal harm (e.g., anxiety at receipt of positive results, misunderstanding of limitations of tests) and clinical harm related to provision of inadequate/sub-standard clinical care. However, they also indicated that they were likely to integrate GCO with their own practise, under certain scenarios (e.g., referral of low-risk clients or triage of people seeking testing appointments). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Providers expressed favourable opinions of internet testing in general and support for GCO. Concerns about potential harms (many of which participants acknowledged existed within the current clinic-based testing system) were generally offset by the perceived benefits of the service. Participants also provided many suggestions for mitigation of potential harms, which have been incorporated into the GCO programme where possible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".