Privacy concerns, HIV care provider trust, and clinical care engagement among women living with HIV in response to the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people with HIV have a legal obligation to disclose their serostatus to partners prior to sex that poses a "realistic possibility" of HIV transmission.This study used Wave 2 survey data from 1422 women living with HIV (WLWH) enrolled in the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study to examine (1) the proportion and socio-demographic characteristics of WLWH who perceived privacy concerns due to the law; (2) the association between WLWH's privacy concerns and trust of HIV care providers; and (3) the association between WLWH's privacy concerns and HIV clinical care engagement.Results showed that a majority of participants reported privacy concerns, and that the socio-economically vulnerable women had significantly higher odds of privacy concerns.WLWH with lower provider trust had higher odds of privacy concerns.There was no significant association between privacy concerns and HIV care engagement. Chapter 2 Perceptions of Privacy Concerns and HIV Care Provider Trust among Women Living with HIV in Response to the Criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".