P119 Community-directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM): An E-Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Canadian clinical guidelines recommend at least annual and quarterly sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among sexually active men who have sex with men (MSM), including those on HIV PrEP or in HIV care. We built consensus around interventions to improve local STI testing services for MSM using a web-based ‘e-Delphi’ process. <h3>Methods</h3> We recruited Experts for a Community Panel (MSM who sought/underwent STI testing in the preceding 18 months, conducted 09/2019–11/2019) and a Provider Panel (offered STI testing to MSM in the past 12 months, conducted 02/2020–05/2020). Experts prioritized 6–8 potential interventions, generated from a literature review, on a 7-point Likert scale of ‘Definitely not a priority’ to ‘Definitely a priority’ over 3 survey rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥60% within a ±1 response point. Summaries of panel responses were given in successive rounds. We report the percentage of ‘a priority’ at the final round of survey. <h3>Results</h3> Among Community Experts, 43/51 (84%) completed all rounds; 19% HIV-positive, 37% HIV-negative on PrEP, 42% HIV-negative not on PrEP. We reached consensus on 6 interventions – Client Reminders (95%), Express testing (88%), Routine testing (84%), Online booking app (84%), Online testing (77%) and Nurse-led testing (72%). Experts favoured interventions that were convenient while also maintaining a relationship with their provider. Among Provider Experts, 37/48 (77%) completed all rounds; 59% were physicians. Consensus was reached on the aforementioned interventions (range 68%-100%) but not reached for Provider Alerts (19%) and Provider Audit and Feedback (16%). Express, Online and Nurse-led testing were prioritized by >95% of Experts because of streamlined processes and decreased need to see a provider. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Both panels were enthusiastic about innovations that make STI testing more efficient. However, Community Experts preferred convenient interventions that involved their provider while Provider Experts favoured interventions that prioritized patient independence and reduced patient-provider time.
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 | 0.050 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".