Barriers and Enablers to Testing for Hepatitis C Infection in People Who Inject Drugs – A Scoping Review of the Qualitative Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Injection drug use is the primary mode of transmission of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the developed world and guidelines recommend screening individuals with current or history of injection drug use for HCV; however, the majority of those living with HCV in Canada are not aware of their positive status. This low level of HCV status awareness suggests that screening is not effective with current testing strategies. The aim of this review is to determine what barriers and enablers people who inject drugs (PWID) experience surrounding testing for HCV to help inform the development of an appealing testing strategy. Methods Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL. Included studies investigated the barriers and enablers to testing for HCV in PWID and the experiences of PWID in testing for HCV. Studies were included if they involved people with current injection drug use or those with a history of injecting drugs, were written in the English language and set in the community. Studies were compared and common themes were coded and analyzed Results Nine studies were included most studies focused on barriers instead of enablers. Common barriers included self-perception of low risk for HCV, fear of diagnosis, stigma associated with IV drug use and HCV, antipathy in relation to mainstream health care services, limited knowledge about HCV, lack of rapport with provider, lack of motivation or competing priority of drug use, and limited awareness of new treatment options. Common enablers to testing included increasing awareness of HCV testing and treatment and providing positive narratives around HCV care, positive rapport with provider, accessible testing options and personalized care. Conclusion This scoping review determined that there has been some research in this area over the past decade though it has not been focused to specifically address this research question. Nevertheless, some common barriers and enablers to testing for HCV were observed across the available research.
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 | 0.038 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".