Investigating the impact of stigma, accessibility and confidentiality on STI/STD/HIV self-testing among college students in the USA: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2019, there were 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in the USA, young people aged 15-24 made up 61% and 42% of chlamydia and gonorrhoea cases, respectively. Moreover, the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were reported among college-aged students. In this paper, we outline our protocol to systematically review the published literature on, the use of STI/HIV self-test kits, increasing STI/HIV testing uptake, and stigma, access and confidentiality issues, among young adult college students in the USA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted and reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search electronic databases, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed and CINAHL, for articles published in English from inception to the present. We will search other alternative sources such as ProQuest, Google Scholar and Google to identify grey literature. A two-step process will be used to identify eligible studies based on the defined inclusion criteria. First, the title and abstract of identified articles will be screened for possible inclusion. Second, full-text articles of relevant studies will be retrieved and screened for inclusion. Both screening steps will be done by two people independently. Finally, data will be extracted by two researchers working independently. Any arising disagreements will be resolved by consensus or by a third author. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a scoping review of the literature. Therefore, ethics approval is not required. Our plan for the dissemination of findings includes peer-reviewed manuscripts, conferences and webinars.
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 | 0.101 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.014 |
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".