Factors Influencing the Acceptability of Nominal, Non-nominal, and Anonymous HIV Testing Options Among Young Men Living in Vancouver, Canada: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Individuals unaware of their HIV seropositive status continue to represent a key "driver" of the HIV epidemic. Strategies to improve initiation into the HIV treatment cascade, including among young men, are required. This study assesses the acceptability of three HIV testing options among young cisgender men living in Vancouver, British Columbia. Using a modified grounded theory approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 45 young cisgender men ages 18-30 years to identify the factors influencing the acceptability of diverse HIV testing approaches. Participants ascribed value to non-nominal testing as a means of providing a secure pathway to HIV-related care for those who test positive while also safeguarding privacy. Anonymous HIV testing was problematized by participants as potentially creating difficulty in accessing ongoing HIV-related care. Most participants preferred non-nominal testing. Nevertheless, based on principles of equity, we argue that anonymous access to one's serostatus should be available, especially within a criminalized context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".