Provider, Patient, and Practice Factors Shape Hepatitis B Prevention and Management by Primary Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To evaluate provider knowledge, attitudes and barriers to hepatitis B virus (HBV) care and management practices across diverse primary care settings. BACKGROUND: Factors influencing adherence to recommended HBV screening and management guidelines are poorly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Providers across various health care settings in San Francisco were surveyed. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with recommended HBV screening, vaccination, and disease monitoring. RESULTS: Of 277 (41.3%) responding providers, 42% reported performing HBV screening in >50% of at-risk patients, and 49%, HBV vaccination in >50% of eligible patients. Most reported appropriate monitoring of a majority of HBV-infected patients with alanine aminotransferase (79%) and HBV viral load (67%) every 6 to 12 months, but performed any hepatocellular carcinoma screening in 49%. Provider factors significantly associated with HBV screening were speaking an Asian language [odds ratio (OR), 3.27], offering HBV treatment (OR, 3.00), having >25% of Asian patients in practice (OR, 2.10), practicing in safety net settings (OR, 7.51) and having higher barrier score (OR, 0.74). Appropriate HBV monitoring was associated with provider speaking an Asian language (OR, 3.43) and provider age (OR, 0.68/decade). Hepatocellular carcinoma screening was associated with having >25% of patients speaking English as a second language (OR, 4.26) and practicing in safety net settings (OR, 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of adherence to HBV guidelines were suboptimal irrespective of practice setting and were influenced by certain provider, patient and practice factors. This study reinforces the importance of engaging primary care providers in development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based HBV practice guidelines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".