Treatment and Partner Notification Outcomes for Clients Diagnosed With Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Through GetCheckedOnline Compared With Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinics in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study comparing treatment and partner notification outcomes for people diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea found no differences between clients of Internet-based and clinic-based testing services. Background Whether treatment, engagement in partner notification (PN), and PN outcomes differ between clients of Internet-based and clinic-based testing services is poorly understood. We compared these outcomes between people diagnosed with chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (CT/GC) through a sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic service and GetCheckedOnline (GCO), an Internet-based testing service in British Columbia. Methods We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study among CT/GC cases where each case diagnosed through GCO in 2016 to 2017 was matched to 2 STI clinic cases by diagnosis, sex, age group, and specimen collection date. Data were collected through chart review, with outcomes compared using appropriate statistical tests. Results Of 257 GCO and 514 matched clinic cases, case treatment was high and did not differ between GCO (254 of 257 [98.9%]) and clinic (513 of 514 [99.8%]) cases, as was engagement in PN (250 of 257 [97.2%] vs. 496 of 514 [96.5%]). There was no difference in the proportion of notified partners between GCO (159 of 270 [58.9%]) and clinic (253 of 435 [58.2%]) cases, although a greater proportion of partners reported by clinic cases were notified by STI nurses (43 of 435 [9.9%]) versus GCO cases (6 of 270 [2.2%]). Conclusions GetCheckedOnline clients diagnosed with CT/GC demonstrated similar treatment uptake and engagement in PN to clinic clients, and PN outcomes did not differ. The greater reliance on STI clinic nurses for PN among clinic clients may be related to having had an initial in-person testing visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".