Survey of Health Care Providers’ Practices and Opinions Regarding Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to rise among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) globally. Testing and treatment can prevent morbidity and transmission. However, testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: In 2018, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey to explore STI testing ordering practices, 14 potential barriers for testing and 11 possible ways to improve testing from the perspective of health care providers in Toronto, Ontario. An estimated 172 providers were invited from primary care and sexual health clinic settings. Providers were eligible to complete the survey if they provided care for ≥1 GBMSM per week and were involved in the decision-making process in providing STI tests. We used descriptive statistics to summarize survey responses. RESULTS: Ninety-five providers (55% response rate) participated, of whom 68% worked in primary care and 32% in sexual health settings. Most (66%) saw ≤10 GBMSM clients per week. In primary care (65%) and sexual health (40%) clinic settings, insufficient consultation time was the most common barrier to STI testing. In primary care, other common barriers included difficulty introducing testing during unrelated consultations (53%), forgetting (47%), and patients being sexually inactive (31%) or declining testing (27%). The following were most likely to improve testing: express/fast-track testing services (89%), provider alerts when patients are due for testing (87%), patient-collected specimens (84%), nurse-led STI testing (79%), and standing orders (79%). CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions to improve bacterial STI testing included initiatives that simplify and expedite testing and expand testing delivery to other health care professionals.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".