Acceptability of Home-Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing and Counseling in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence on the acceptability of home-based human immunodeficiency virus testing and counseling (HB-HTC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to map evidence on the acceptability of HB-HTC in LMICs. We searched PubMed, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, Science Direct, World Health Organization library database, and UNAIDS databases from January 2013 to October 2017. Two independent reviewers screened the studies using the eligibility criteria both at abstract and full article screening stages as well as performing quality assessment of the included articles. Discrepancies at the abstract stage were resolved through discussions while a third reviewer was involved at the full article screening stage. The risk of bias of included studies was appraised using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2011. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify patterns of acceptability of HB-HTC. Of 620 studies identified from the data bases searched, 30 studies were included for data extraction. All included studies were published between 2013 and 2017. Most of the study participants from these included studies were aged between 18 months to 100 years comprising of males (59%) and females (41%). These included studies were conducted in diverse locations including South Africa, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, China, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda, and Brazil. Most of the studies were conducted in South Africa (9) and Kenya (7). Evidence showed that HB-HTC was most accepted by the female population compared with males in LMICs. In conclusion, there is adequate evidence on acceptability of HB-HTC in LMICs and linkage to care. This study additionally demonstrates that HB-HTC approach was more acceptable compared with facility-based HTC.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".