Attitudes and Preferences Regarding Non–Clinic-Based Self-Collection for Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Clinic Attendees in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a global epidemic; although screening programs reduce transmission, barriers, including access and stigma, hinder success. The World Health Organization highlights the ability to maintain health without the direct support of a health care provider as one form of self-care, which can be applied to STI testing. Self-care through non-clinic-based self-collection for STI testing can address barriers while providing comprehensive care. Before implementation of innovative changes to screening approaches, it is important to understand if communities who rely on in-person care will self-collect outside of the clinic setting. This study investigated willingness to use non-clinic-based self-collection for STI testing among STI clinic attendees in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Participants (n = 446) were recruited from STI clinics offering clinic-based self-collection for STI testing and completed a survey assessing self-care attitudes, including willingness to self-collect urine samples, throat swabs, and anogenital swabs outside of the clinic setting. Descriptive statistics, bivariable analyses, and multivariable models were conducted to investigate willingness to use non-clinic-based STI self-collection methods and associated correlates. RESULTS: This population reported high willingness to use non-clinic-based self-collection methods for STI testing (urine samples, 73%; throat swabs, 67%; anogenital swabs, 65%). Those aged 35 to 54 years compared with 15 to 34 years were more likely to be willing (adjusted odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.50); those identifying as straight/mostly straight compared with gay/lesbian were less likely to be willing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Non-clinic-based self-collection for STI testing can address barriers to testing while maintaining quality care. Those currently receiving in-person care find these methods highly acceptable. These findings reinforce that self-collection for STI testing used in British Columbia clinics is acceptable to clients and may be extended to collection performed outside of the clinical setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".