MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P2.44 No differences in knowledge of key hiv test concepts between users of an online sti testing service (getcheckedonline.com) and in-clinic testers in vancouver, canada

2017· article· en· W2743386119 on OpenAlexaffabout
Travis Salway, Kimberly Thomson, Darlene Taylor, Elizabeth Elliot, Tom Wong, Christopher K. Fairley, Devon Haag, Troy Grennan, Jean Shoveller, Gina Ogilvie, Mark Gilbert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)Family medicineHiv testDelphi methodHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ReceiptService (business)Health servicesPopulationArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Online HIV/STI testing is an alternative to in-clinic testing, but may lead to missed opportunities for education due to the lack of provider-delivered pre/post-test counselling. GetCheckedOnline (GCO) is an online testing service offered through an urban STI clinic in Vancouver. It was designed to include concepts typically conveyed during in-clinic HIV counselling sessions (e.g., window period, public health reporting). The aim of this study was to compare knowledge of key HIV test concepts between clients testing through GCO and in-clinic. Methods GCO and clinic participants were concurrently recruited over 11 months. Participants were invited to complete an anonymous online survey 2 weeks after receipt of test results. Knowledge of key concepts related to HIV testing was measured using a 6-item true/false test previously developed through a modified Delphi process, cognitive testing and psychometric evaluation. Linear regression was used to assess the association between site (GCO vs. clinic) and overall test scores, after adjustment for age, education, immigration history, language, sexual orientation, and testing history. Results 404 HIV-negative participants were included in the analysis (73 GCO, 331 in-clinic). HIV test knowledge scores averaged 0.4 points higher among GCO (mean score 4.5) than among clinic (4.1) testers (p=0.01). Following adjustment for relevant covariates, this difference decreased to 0.2 points (p=0.15). Likewise, there was no difference in mean HIV test knowledge scores among first-time testers (n=50; 3.7 GCO, 3.6 in-clinic; p=0.75). Conclusion Post-test knowledge of HIV test concepts addressed in standard pre-test counselling was high in both groups and not significantly different following adjustment. Our study suggests that equivalent education about core HIV testing concepts can be achieved through web-based HIV/STI testing, and illustrates the importance of designing services to intentionally address relevant educational messages covered in provider-delivered HIV test counselling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→