Community and Health Care Provider Preferences for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions for Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: e-Delphi Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Canadian clinical guidelines recommend at least annual and up to quarterly bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). However, testing rates are suboptimal. Innovative solutions are needed to close the gap because there is currently limited knowledge on how best to approach this issue. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to build consensus regarding interventions with the greatest potential for improving local STI testing services for GBM communities in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, using a web-based e-Delphi process. METHODS The e-Delphi method involves using a panel format to conduct successive rounds of prioritization, with feedback between rounds, to determine priorities among groups. We recruited experts separately from the community (GBM who sought or underwent STI testing in the preceding 18 months; conducted between October 2019 and November 2019) and health care providers (those who offered STI testing to GBM in the past 12 months; conducted between February 2020 and May 2020). The experts prioritized 6 to 8 potential interventions on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not a priority to definitely a priority over 3 survey rounds and ranked their top 3 interventions. Consensus was defined as ≥60% within a ±1 response point. Summaries of responses were provided in successive rounds. We reported the percentage of a priority (encompassing somewhat a priority, a priority, and definitely a priority responses) at the end of the final round of the survey. RESULTS Of the community experts (CEs), 84% (43/51) completed all rounds; 19% (8/43) were living with HIV; 37% (16/43) were HIV negative and on pre-exposure prophylaxis; and 42% (18/43) were HIV negative and not on pre-exposure prophylaxis. We reached consensus on 6 interventions: client reminders (41/43, 95%), express testing (38/43, 88%), routine testing (36/43, 84%), an online booking app (36/43, 84%), online-based testing (33/43, 77%), and nurse-led testing (31/43, 72%). The CEs favored convenient interventions that also maintain a relationship with their provider. Of the provider experts (PEs), 77% (37/48) completed all rounds; 59% (22/37) were physicians. Consensus was reached on the same 6 interventions (range 25/37, 68%, to 39/39, 100%) but not for provider alerts (7/37, 19%) and provider audit and feedback (6/37, 16%). Express testing, online-based testing, and nurse-led testing were prioritized by >95% (>37/39) of the PEs by the end of round 2 because of streamlined processes and decreased need to see a provider. CONCLUSIONS Both panels were enthusiastic about innovations that make STI testing more efficient, with express testing rating highly in both the prioritizations and top 3 rankings. However, CEs preferred convenient interventions that involved their provider, whereas PEs favored interventions that prioritized patient independence and reduced patient-provider time. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/13801
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 | 0.029 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".