“It’s a win for the clinic, it’s a win for the frontline, but, most importantly, it’s a win for the client”: Task Shifting HIV Prevention Services from Clinicians to Community Health Workers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite strong evidence from low- and middle-income countries supporting the use of task shifting to provide quality, cost-effective HIV-related health services, this strategy has been adopted less widely in high-income countries such as Canada. Methods: In 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 clinicians (e.g., psychologists, nurses, physicians) and 14 community health workers (CHWs) in Ontario to examine their perspectives on the prospect of shifting HIV/STBBI testing services and PrEP in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using content analysis. A community consultation with key stakeholders was also performed to assess the validity of the findings. Results: There was substantial agreement between clinicians and CHWs with respect to shifting specific tasks related to HIV/STBBI testing and PrEP. In particular, most participants felt that rapid HIV testing could and should be provided by CHWs and that ASOs could be ideal sites for clients to obtain and use self-testing kits for STBBIs. Most respondents agreed that CHWs have the skills and expertise required to perform most non-clinical services related to PrEP (e.g., pre-counselling, follow-up, case management). The co-location of clinicians and CHWs could help support the development of task shifting initiatives. Conclusion: Findings indicate that there is enthusiasm among both clinicians and CHWs with respect to shifting HIV prevention services. Creative solutions are required to have a meaningful impact on HIV incidence in this population. Policy Implications: With adequate training and supervision, non-regulated CHWs should be allowed to provide certain HIV prevention services such as rapid HIV testing. A provincial, publicly funded program for PrEP is recommended.
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 | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".