Incentive-Based Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections Screening in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing access to treatment and screening, rates of sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBI) continue to rise in high-income countries. The high cost of undiagnosed and untreated STBBI negatively affects individuals, health care systems, and societies. The use of monetary and nonmonetary incentives may increase STBBI screening uptake in high-income countries. Incentivized screening programs are most effective when developed specific to context and target population. METHODS: Our review was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, high-income countries, primary research studies, and older than 16 years. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tools. RESULTS: The search yielded 6219 abstracts. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies took place in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Populations screened included: postsecondary and tertiary students, parolees or probationers, youth, and inner-city emergency department patients. Incentivized STBBI screened were human immunodeficiency virus (n = 5), chlamydia (n = 7), and multiple infections (n = 1). Incentives offered were monetary (cash/gift cards/not specified) (n = 10), nonmonetary (n = 1), and mixed (n = 2). Both monetary and nonmonetary incentives enhance STBBI screening in high-income countries. CONCLUSION: Incentivized screening programs are most effective when developed specific to context and target population. Further research is needed to analyze incentivized screening across similar study designs and to evaluate long-term effectiveness.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".