MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378596612 · doi:10.1071/sh23051

Agreement of and discussion with clients about Undetectable equals Untransmissible among general practitioners in Australia: a cross-sectional survey

2023· article· en· W4378596612 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalCross-sectional studyDemographyLogistic regressionFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The message of undetectable HIV viral load equals untransmissible (U=U) is important to reduce HIV stigma. We examined Australian general practitioner (GP)s' agreement of and discussion with clients about U=U. METHODS: We conducted an online survey through GP networks from April to October 2022. All GPs working within Australia were eligible. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with: (1) agreement of U=U; and (2) discussing U=U with clients. RESULTS: Of 703 surveys, 407 were included in the final analysis. Mean age was 39.7years (s.d.: 8.4). Most GPs (74.2%, n =302) agreed with U=U, but only 33.9% (n =138) had ever discussed U=U with clients. Key barriers to discussing U=U were lack of relevant client presentations (48.7%), lack of understanding about U=U (39.9%), and difficulty identifying those who would benefit from U=U (6.6%). Agreement with U=U was associated with greater odds of discussing U=U (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.33-9.68), younger age (AOR 0.96 per additional year of age, 95%CI: 0.94-0.99), and extra training in sexual health (AOR 1.96, 95%CI: 1.11-3.45). Discussing U=U was associated with younger age (AOR 0.97, 95%CI: 0.94-1.00), extra training with sexual health (AOR 1.93, 95%CI: 1.17-3.17), and negatively associated with working in a metropolitan or suburban area (AOR 0.45, 95%CI: 0.24-0.86). CONCLUSION: Most GPs agreed with U=U, but most had not discussed U=U with their clients. Concerningly, one in four GPs were neutral or disagreed with U=U, suggesting that further qualitative research to understand this finding, and implementation research to promote U=U among Australian GPs, is urgently needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it