MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120302500 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040817

Nurse-led PrEP-RN clinic: a prospective cohort study exploring task-Shifting HIV prevention to public health nurses

2021· article· en· W3120302500 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patrick O’Byrne, Amanda Vandyk, Lauren Orser, Marlene Haines

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePublic healthProspective cohort studyCohortHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Pre-exposure prophylaxisLogistic regressionNursingMen who have sex with menInternal medicineSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a nurse-led pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery service. DESIGN: testing. Those significant in bivariate analysis were retained and entered into a binary multiple logistic regression. Hierarchical modelling was used, and only significant factors were retained. SETTING: This study occurred in an urban public health unit and community-based sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Of all persons who were diagnosed with a bacterial STI in Ottawa and everyone who presented to our STI clinic during the study period, there were 347 patients who met our high-risk criteria for PrEP; these criteria included patients who newly presented with any of the following: HIV contacts, diagnosed with a bacterial STI or single use of HIV PEP. Further, eligibility could be determined based on clinical judgement. Patients who met the foregoing criteria were appropriate for PrEP-RN, while lower-risk patients were referred to elsewhere. Of the 347 patients who met our high-risk criteria, 47% accepted and 53% declined. Of those who accepted, 80% selected PrEP-registered nurse (RN). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake, acceptance, engagement and attrition factors of participants who obtained PrEP through PrEP-RN. FINDINGS: 69% of participants who were eligible attended their intake PrEP-RN visit. 66% were retained in care. Half of participants continued PrEP and half were lost to follow-up. We found no significant differences in the uptake, acceptance, engagement and attrition factors of participants who accessed PrEP-RN regarding reason for referral, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, annual income, education attainted, insurance status, if they have a primary care provider, presence or absence of depression or anxiety and evidence of newly acquired STI during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led PrEP is an appropriate strategy for PrEP delivery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207