An Exploratory Study of a Nurse-Led HIV Postexposure Prophylaxis Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provision of HIV medications to HIV-negative persons after exposure to HIV is known as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Because this prevention strategy is primarily only available in emergency rooms, we piloted a nurse-led community-based PEP program in Ottawa from September 2013 through August 2015. As part of evaluating this program, we conducted qualitative interviews with persons who initiated PEP. Twelve men who had engaged in condomless anal sex with other males participated. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts highlighted that PEP was considered unmentionable because the participants' saw it as proof of past behavior that was perceived negatively. Our results thus revealed that PEP was stigmatized, which made our participants reluctant to answer health care professionals' "questions" about why they needed PEP. To do so was to be exposed to stigma. The use of PEP for our participants was a balance between wanting to minimize the risks of HIV acquisition against the risks of disclosing the unmentionable. We take these findings to mean that clinicians and health service policy workers should move PEP into community clinics (decentralizing it from hospitals, and increase the involvement of nurses); aim to provide all required PEP services in community settings (consolidate PEP provision in these clinics); and ensure PEP services are streamlined to remove extraneous data collection (meaning history and exam tools should be standardized to minimize needless questions that may impede PEP access). Together, these recommendations may increase patients' access to PEP, and maximize its HIV prevention effects.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".