P119 Community-directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM): An E-Delphi Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it