Acceptability, Predictors and Attitudes of Canadian Women in Labour Toward Point‐of‐Care HIV Testing At A Single Labour and Delivery Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes and opinions surrounding point-of-care HIV testing among Canadian women, and to determine predictors for acceptance of testing. METHODS: A survey assessing acceptability and attitudes toward rapid HIV testing was distributed on the labour and delivery unit in an academic hospital (St Michael's Hospital) in Toronto, Ontario, in 2011. Information collected included demographic data, health and pregnancy history, willingness to undergo rapid HIV testing while in labour and barriers to testing. RESULTS: Responses in 92 completed questionnaires were analyzed. The mean age of respondents was 32 years and all were HIV negative. Twelve percent of patients reported having at least one risk factor for HIV transmission. The study showed that only 59% of women were willing to be tested at the time of survey completion, and these women stated that they would accept saliva, urine or serum testing. If found to be positive, 96% would accept antiretroviral treatment and 94% would formula feed their infants. Of the 41% who were not willing to be tested, their reasons for refusal included "don't want to know" (39%) and being in "too much labour pain" (29%). Regardless of willingness to be tested, the most frequently cited barriers to testing were social stigma (64%) and reaction from partners (69%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian women in labour were willing to undergo rapid HIV testing via urine, saliva or serum. If found to be positive, women were willing to undergo treatment and to formula feed to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".