Timeliness of diagnosis of HIV in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Late diagnosis of HIV is associated with poor outcomes and increased cost. Novel HIV testing promotion strategies may reduce late diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the timeliness of HIV testing in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), missed opportunities for testing, and barriers to HIV testing. Methods: Demographic and clinical information from individuals diagnosed with HIV in NL from 2006–2016 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were also invited to participate in semi-structured interviews regarding knowledge about HIV transmission, risk associated with their behaviour, testing decision making, and testing opportunities. Results: Fifty-eight new HIV diagnoses occurred during the study period: 53/58 (91.4%) were male and 33/58 (56.9%) were men who have sex with men. The mean age at diagnosis was 40.6 (SD 11.05) years. CD4 count at diagnosis ranged from 2 to 1,408 cells/mm3, with a mean of 387 cells/mm3. For 39/58 (67.2%) of individuals, the first-ever HIV test was positive. Of the 58 patients, 55 (94.8%) had had health care contact within the 5 years prior to diagnosis (mean 13.7 contacts). Heterosexual men were more likely to present with a late diagnosis ( p = 0.049). Ten (17.2%) individuals agreed to an interview. Thematic analysis revealed that barriers to testing were stigma, negative health care interactions, denial, and fear of the diagnosis. Conclusions: HIV diagnosis is made later in NL than in other Canadian provinces. Late diagnosis may be prevented if HIV testing became a routine testing procedure.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".