MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415906549 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108691

Three infections, one fight: an implementation study to map needle prevalence and evaluate HIV, syphilis and hepatitis C prevention interventions in Regina, Saskatchewan – a protocol

2025· article· en· W4415906549 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew D. Eaton, Megan Rowe, Shiny Mary Varghese, Heather House, Nelson Pang, Sandra Kwan, Vidya Dhar Reddy, Tashia Acoose, Jason Littleford, Erin Sarah Foreman, JoLee Sasakamoose, Mamata Pandey, Priscilla Medeiros, Mona Loutfy, Daniel Grace, David J. Brennan, Kai Zhao, Paul A. Shuper, Francisco Ibáñez-Carrasco

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioUniversity of Regina
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunitySaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsHepatitis CSyphilisPsychological interventionProtocol (science)EpidemiologyPublic healthHepatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Saskatchewan is facing a public health crisis driven by high rates of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, particularly among people who use drugs. Injection drug use is a major contributor to these syndemic infections, exacerbated by structural barriers such as stigma, poverty and limited culturally safe healthcare. Innovative, community-informed approaches are urgently needed to improve prevention, testing and linkage to care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will implement a rapid assessment and response system in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, integrating geospatial mapping of community needle prevalence with pop-up interventions. Needle hotspot maps will be used to guide the deployment of community-based pop-up events offering point-of-care testing for HIV, syphilis and HCV, alongside education on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). A convergent participatory mixed-methods design will be used to evaluate feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness, guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Quantitative data will assess changes in knowledge of PrEP and PEP, satisfaction with the intervention and report new diagnoses and participant demographics descriptively. A qualitative substudy will include 30 participants and will explore experiences with the intervention, barriers to care and perceptions of service delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the research ethics board of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (#24-91). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and community reporting. This study may provide a model of community-based geospatial testing and education that could be scaled up and adapted elsewhere. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HVK3B.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→