MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3046675580 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034144

‘Transgender Education for Affirmative and Competent HIV and Healthcare (TEACHH)’: protocol of community-based intervention development and a non-randomised multisite pilot study with pre–post test design in Canada

2020· article· en· W3046675580 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ashley Lacombe‐Duncan, Carmen H. Logie, Yasmeen Persad, Gabrielle Leblanc, Kelendria Nation, Hannah Kia, Ayden I. Scheim, Tara Lyons, Mona Loutfy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMedicineTransgenderHealth careFamily medicineFocus groupIntervention (counseling)NursingTest (biology)Research designProtocol (science)Medical educationAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Educational workshops are a promising strategy to increase healthcare providers' ability to provide gender-affirming care for transgender (trans) people. This strategy may also reduce healthcare providers' stigma towards trans people and people living with HIV. There is less evidence, however, of educational workshops that address HIV prevention and care among trans women. This protocol details development and pilot testing of the Transgender Education for Affirmative and Competent HIV and Healthcare intervention that aims to increase gender-affirming HIV care knowledge and perceived competency, and to reduce negative attitudes/biases, among providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This community-based research (CBR) project involves intervention development and implementation of a non-randomised multisite pilot study with pre-post test design. First, we conducted a qualitative formative phase involving focus groups with 30 trans women and individual interviews with 12 providers to understand HIV care access barriers for trans women and elicit feedback on a proposed workshop. Second, we will pilot test the intervention with 90-150 providers (n=30-50×3 in-person settings). For pilot studies, primary outcomes include feasibility (eg, completion rate) and acceptability (eg, workshop satisfaction). Secondary preintervention and postintervention outcomes, assessed directly preceding and following the workshop, include perceived competency, attitudes/biases towards trans women with HIV, and knowledge needed to provide gender-affirming HIV care. Primary outcomes will be summarised as frequencies and proportions (categorical variables). We will conduct paired-sample t-tests to explore the direction of preintervention and postintervention differences for secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of Toronto HIV Research Ethics Board (Protocol Number: 00036238). Study findings will be disseminated through community forums with trans women and service providers; manuscripts submitted to peer reviewed journals; and conferences. Findings will inform a larger CBR research agenda to remove barriers to engagement in HIV prevention/care among trans women across Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04096053; Pre-results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→