The experiences of people who use injection drugs with accessing hepatitis c testing and diagnosis in western countries: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize the literature that reported on the experiences of people who use injection drugs' access to hepatitis C testing and diagnosis in Western countries. METHODS: The initial search was conducted in 2020 and an updated review was completed in 2022. Seven electronic databases were searched using a peer-reviewed search strategy and included: full-text, peer-reviewed studies with people who inject(ed) drugs, hepatitis C testing or diagnosis, conducted in Western countries. Excluded were studies published prior to 2014 and intervention studies. Two-step screening was conducted in duplicate. Conventional content analysis was used. RESULTS: Six studies were found from the search. The studies were published between 2014 and 2021 in Australia, United Kingdom, and United States. A total of 19 participant characteristics were extracted to contextualize their experiences, demonstrating a lack of demographic data. Four themes were found: Awareness and Knowledge, Stigma, Healthcare Service, and Psychological Responses. There were 58 occurrences of client quotes where participants described their experiences, 29 occurrences of quotes describing client-identified barriers, and 14 occurrences of quotes describing client-identified facilitators. CONCLUSION: A scoping review was conducted to present the experiences, barriers, and facilitators of people who use injection drugs to hepatitis C testing. The lack of demographic data and connection to client quotes further exacerbates the inequities among the population by overlooking their intragroup identities. Understanding their experiences of accessing hepatitis C testing and collecting demographic data will help advance health policies and interventions targeting people who use injection drugs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".