Co-designing the INHSU Prisons Hepatitis C Advocacy Toolkit using the Advocacy Strategy Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has established targets to eliminate the hepatitis C virus (HCV) by 2030. Prisons are a key focus of elimination efforts, however, access to HCV services in prisons remains low globally. With the aim of increasing advocacy efforts to help address this gap, the International Network on Health and Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) Prisons, developed a Prisons Hepatitis C Advocacy Toolkit. METHODS: Toolkit development involved a co-design process to ensure advocacy resources met end-user needs. A scoping study was conducted, involving a web-based survey and in-depth interviews, to understand advocacy resource needs of key stakeholders from countries of different socio-economic strata. Data were analysed, and suggested advocacy resources were mapped onto the Advocacy Strategy Framework with the audiences resources are targetting and the changes they aim to influence. Advocacy resources were co-developed and validated by interview participants before incorporation into the web-based platform. RESULTS: Survey responses (n = 181) and interview data (n = 25) highlighted several barriers to enhancing HCV services in prisons globally, and an understanding that advocacy efforts are needed to bring about this change. Advocacy resources were suggested for influencing three key audiences: policymakers/funders, implementers, and community. Thereafter, a suite of 20 de novo tools were co-developed with key stakeholders including case studies of evidence-based models of HCV care, policy briefs, HCV infographics, and fact sheets about how to leverage funding and build advocacy campaigns. Findings underscore the importance of capitalising on the knowledge and expertise of potential end-users, to ensure Toolkit resources are context-specific and match their needs. CONCLUSION: The Toolkit holds promise for progressing the WHO elimination goals by increasing advocacy efforts for enhanced prison HCV services globally. The co-design of Toolkit resources with potential end-users has increased its potential accessibility, acceptability, and inclusivity for a globally diverse audience.
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 | 0.047 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".