HIV self-testing in the real world is acceptable for many: post-test participant feedback from the GetaKit study in Ottawa, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: HIV self-testing is the latest strategy to improve access to testing, diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies are beneficial due to the improved individual- and population-level health outcomes that emerge from early HIV diagnosis. Aims: While most research shows that HIV self-testing is acceptable and feasible, yielding higher numbers of first-time testers and positivity rates, compared to clinic-based testing, little evidence exists outside low- and middle-income countries about such testing. Methods: We implemented GetaKit.ca, a website through which eligible participants could register for and obtain an INSTI® HIV self-testing to their home, and then report the result back. Results: Those who returned to the website were asked to complete a post-test survey, which had a low response rate (42%), but identified satisfaction scores of 92%. Notably, 5% of testers sought in-person care after ordering the self-test, and only 80% of participants agreed that the INSTI® HIV self-test was easy to use. Conclusions: Participants provided tangible solutions to improve this test, which we feel are easy to incorporate and essential to maintain HIV self-testing efforts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".