MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750964664 · doi:10.2196/publichealth.7902

Developing a Web-Based Geolocated Directory of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis-Providing Clinics: The PrEP Locator Protocol and Operating Procedures

2017· article· en· W2750964664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aaron J. Siegler, Susan Schlueter Wirtz, Shannon Weber, Patrick S. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonEmory University
KeywordsProtocol (science)DirectoryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicinePre-exposure prophylaxisWorld Wide WebComputer scienceFamily medicineMen who have sex with menOperating systemAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission, yet patients interested in learning more about PrEP or in getting a PrEP prescription may not be able to find local medical providers willing to prescribe PrEP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to create a national database of PrEP-providing clinics to allow for patients to have access to a unified, vetted source of PrEP providers in an easily accessible database. METHODS: To develop the protocol and operating procedures for the PrEP Locator, we conducted a series of 7 key informant interviews with experts who had organized PrEP or other HIV service directories. We convened an external advisory committee and a collaborators board to gain expert and community-situated perspectives. RESULTS: At its public release in September 2016, the database included 1,272 PrEP-providing clinics, including clinics in all 50 states and in Puerto Rico. Web searches, referrals, and outreach to state health departments identified 58 unique lists of PrEP-providing clinics, with 33 from state health departments, 6 from government localities, 2 from professional medical organizations, and 19 from nongovernmental organizations. Out of the 2,420 clinics identified from the lists and Web searches, we removed 798 as duplicate entries, and we determined that 350 were ineligible for listing. The most common reasons for ineligibility were not having the appropriate medical licensure to prescribe PrEP (67/350) or not prescribing PrEP, based on self-report (192/350). Key informant interviews shaped important protocol decisions, such as listing clinics instead of individual clinicians as the primary data element and streamlining data collection to facilitate scalability. We developed a Web interface to provide public access to the data, with geolocated data display, search filter functionality, a webform for public suggestions of new clinics, and a publicly available directory Web tool that can be embedded in websites. In the 6 months following release, preplocator.org and hosting websites had received over 35,000 unique views and 300 clinic additions, and 5 websites had initiated hosting of the widget. CONCLUSIONS: Directories exist for many preventive and treatment services. As new medical applications become available, there will be a corresponding need to develop new directories for service provision. Geolocated directories can assist patients in accessing care and have the potential to increase demand for and access to newer, more efficacious medical interventions. Early choices in the development of service directories have long-lasting impact, because once data collection begins, it can be challenging to reverse course. The PrEP Locator protocol may inform early decisions in the development of future service directories. Additionally, the case study on developing the PrEP Locator demonstrates the importance of formative work in identifying service-specific factors that can guide decisions on directory development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations64
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207