Agreement of and discussion with clients about Undetectable equals Untransmissible among general practitioners in Australia: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".