Acceptability of a digital patient notification and linkage-to-care tool for French PrEPers (WeFLASH <sup>©</sup> ): Key stakeholders' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe stakeholders’ perspectives on the acceptability of WeFLASH © (AADISS, Paris, France), a digital smartphone sexually transmitted infection (STI) patient notification (PN) tool to be launched among French HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis users (PrEPers). In Paris, Lyon, and Nice, we conducted 2-hour focus group discussions with PrEPers (n = 21) and community mediators (n = 10), and one-on-one interviews with PrEP-prescribing physicians (n = 5) and HIV/STI management decision-makers (n = 4). Recordings were transcribed. The analysis focused on perceived benefits and risks. Concerning benefits, participants mentioned that WeFLASH © could provide: improved PN and STI screening, by refining the notification of anonymous partners; customized linkage-to-care, by providing users with tailored information on care; and transferable epidemiological data, by filling a need for real-time data. Participants anticipated risks for: privacy and confidentiality and suggested specific security settings to protect users’ identity; sexual behavior and suggested game-like functions to improve the integration of the tool in sexual contexts; and fairness and emphasized the importance of making WeFLASH © accessible to all men who have sex with men. WeFLASH © could facilitate PN for an increasing proportion of anonymous partners met online, and empower users, including notified partners, on questions of confidentiality and consent, access to STI prevention and screening services, and access to data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".