Assessing uptake of national HIV screening and testing guidance—Part 1: Awareness, use and usefulness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (the Guide) to support routine HIV screening and testing practices of health care providers in Canada and promote early detection of new HIV cases. Little was known regarding health care providers' awareness and use of the Guide. OBJECTIVE: To determine Canadian health care providers' awareness, use and perceived usefulness of the Guide. METHODS: An open, anonymous online survey, including questions on awareness, use and usefulness, was developed with stakeholders, validated and pre-tested. It was then disseminated to a convenience sample of health care providers across Canada between June and August 2016. RESULTS: A total of 1,075 participants representing all Canadian provinces and territories responded to the survey, with the majority being nurses (54%) and physicians (12%). About two-thirds of respondents (65%) were aware of the Guide; of those, approximately half used it. Thirty-five percent of participants were not aware of the Guide, including none of the 173 health care providers in primary care (family/general practice). Among participants who were aware of and used the Guide, over 80% reported incorporating recommendations from the Guide into their practice and 77% reported frequently or always being able to find information they were looking for. CONCLUSIONS: appears to be very useful for those who are aware of it and use it; however, awareness of the Guide appears to be low in primary care. Although these results need to be interpreted in light of the convenience sample, it suggests broader dissemination efforts may be needed to reach all of the potential users of the Guide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".