Public health counselling following an HIV diagnosis among men who have sex with men: tensions between individual needs and health protection mandates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Ontario, provincial regulations stipulate that public health units must complete post-test counselling with all persons newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus. Public health nurses conduct this follow-up and are responsible for ensuring appropriate surveillance and management of human immunodeficiency virus with the primary objective of reducing ongoing human immunodeficiency virus transmission in their health jurisdiction. To date, little research has explored the effectiveness of this mandatory public health counselling from the perspective of patients - the majority of whom are men who have sex with men. AIMS: To address gaps in public health nursing practice, a pilot study was conducted with men who have sex with men in Ottawa to explore their attitudes and experiences of receiving mandatory human immunodeficiency virus follow-up after their diagnosis. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted and interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: This analysis revealed a contrariety between the needs of individuals and of public health units, with patients' perceiving their personal wishes to be secondary to public health mandates - and led patients to simultaneously want to evade, and be assisted by, public health nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Public health units and nurses should consider adopting a more patient-centered approach to HIV case management, which incorporates patients' experiences of receiving an HIV diagnosis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".