The Role of Health Belief Model in HIV Screening Decision among International Students in the United States: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We sought to determine how the Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs relate to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) screening decisions among international students and which of the HBM constructs was most relevant in those screening decisions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study using an online survey of international students at Western Illinois University in the United States. Participants signed electronic informed consent. The online survey comprised of questions that assessed their sociodemographic characteristics, acceptance of HIV screening, and perceived knowledge of HIV. The survey also determined the role of perceived benefits, perceived threat, and cues to action in making HIV screening decisions among the study population. Results: Four hundred and ninety students were invited to participate in the survey out of which 185 responses were obtained. In all, 107(57.8%) were males, and 78(42.8%) were females. Most of the respondents were from Asia (64.9%) and Africa (24.9%). The prevalence of acceptance of HIV screening among international students was found to be 73.5%. About 90% of the participants perceived HIV screening to be beneficial to their health, and 76% of them would accept the screening because they were offered. The majority (83%) of participants who said that they would not accept HIV screening, were also not sexually active, and they did not think they could be susceptible to HIV Conclusion and Implications for Translation: Perceived benefits and cues to action were found to be the significant factors that informed the decision of people who accepted to be screened for HIV Perceived susceptibility informed the decision of those that rejected the screening. Caution is warranted in generalizing the findings from this study because of the limited sample size; however, we are confident that our findings are reproducible in a larger population context.
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 | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".