P044 Regional differences in use of getcheckedonline and client characteristics across british columbia, canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background GetCheckedOnline (GCO) launched in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Canada, in September 2014, offering online access to sexually-transmitted infection (STI) testing. In February 2016, the program expanded to smaller urban, suburban, and rural communities in south central BC (Interior Health Authority) and Vancouver Island (Island Health Authority). Given regional differences in STI clinic service availability, we used GCO program data to compare socio-demographic and behavioural measures by region among clients completing testing through GCO. Methods GCO test episode and client-level data were included from the first 23 months of regional expansion (February 2016 to December 2018). Variables were analyzed descriptively. Bivariate analyses comparing Vancouver with each of the expansion regions (Island and Interior) were conducted using chi-squared tests; significant results (p<0.05) are listed below. Results During the study period, 6,329 unique clients completed testing, with 3,435 (54%) from Vancouver, 1,834 (29%) from Island, and 1,060 (17%) from Interior. In total, 10,953 test episodes were completed. STI positivity was higher in Interior compared to Vancouver (6.1% vs 4.8%). Vancouver testers were older and a higher proportion identified as men who have sex with men (35%) compared to Interior (14%) and Island (26%). Greater proportions of testers from the expansion regions were symptomatic and reported STI risk factors (contact with STI-positive partner, condomless sex with >1 partner) at time of testing. Higher proportions of testing events in expansion regions were reported as first-time STI tests (never tested before: 23% Interior and 15% Island vs 9% Vancouver). Conclusion This study highlights important regional differences in socio-demographic and sexual risk behaviours among GCO clients. Further research describing predictors of STI positivity, repeat testing patterns, and differences in barriers to testing across regions will help contextualize the impact of an online STI testing service across urban, suburban, and rural environments. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".