A cross-sectional evaluation of opt-in testing for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections in three Canadian provincial correctional facilities: a missed opportunity for public health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Incarceration provides an opportunity for screening and treatment of sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs) in high-risk groups. The purpose of this paper is to determine positivity rates of STBBI screening within correctional facilities using opt-in strategies and estimate the proportion of admissions tested. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional, retrospective review of testing data from January 2012 to August 2015 from three provincial correctional facilities located in Alberta, Canada was completed. Analysis variables included STBBI, gender, facility, collection year and age. STBBI-stratified analysis was performed to identify correlates for positivity using univariate and logistic regressions. Findings Overall prevalence of chlamydia was 11.2 percent and gonorrhea was 3.5 percent; correlates for both were younger age and facility type. The syphilis prevalence rate was 3.2 percent; correlates included being female, older age, adult facilities, with later years being protective. In total, 14 (0.3 percent) newly diagnosed HIV cases were found, prevalence increased with age. HBV prevalence was 1.7 percent with no significant correlations. Nearly one-tenth ( n =422) of those screened for HCV antibody were positive; all variables were significantly correlated. Overall estimates of the proportion of admissions tested by STBBI were low and ranged from 4.8 to 16.1 percent. Originality/value This study found high rates of STBBI in correctional facilities and showed that only a small proportion of the population was tested using an opt-in strategy. Shifting to an “opt-out” strategy may be warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".