Assessing the acceptability of dried blood spot testing for HIV and STBBI among Métis people in a community driven pilot project in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little literature exists on culturally grounded approaches for addressing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBI) among Métis people. The goal of this mixed-methods research was to explore the experiences of Métis community members participating in a dried blood spot testing (DBST) for HIV/STBBI pilot for Métis communities in Alberta, Canada, with the aim of assessing the acceptability of this testing method. METHODS: Grounded in community-based and Indigenous research approaches and working in partnership with a Métis community-based organization, data collection included a survey and four gathering circles with Métis DBST recipients at one of two community events, and semi-structured interviews with three DBST providers. RESULTS: Twenty-six of the 30 DBST recipients completed surveys, and 19 DBST recipients participated in gathering circles. Survey results suggest DBST is a highly acceptable STBBI testing method to Métis community members. Thematic analysis of gathering circle and interview transcripts revealed four broad themes related to the participants' experiences with DBST related to its acceptability (i. ease of DBST process, ii. overcoming logistical challenges associated with existing STBBI testing, iii. Reducing stigma through health role models and event-based, and iv. Métis-specific services). CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate the potential for DBST to be part of a culturally grounded, Métis-specific response to HIV and STBBI.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".