Point-of-care HIV testing in UK dental settings: outcomes of a feasibility and acceptability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) which can lead to poorer health outcomes. HIV testing in non-traditional healthcare settings has played an important role in identifying patients with undiagnosed HIV. Expanding HIV testing into non-traditional healthcare settings such as dental practices could offer an opportunity to access an untapped population.Aim The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of HIV point of care testing (POCT) in dental settings in the UK and the feasibility of a full-scale trial.Methods A universal, opt-out, HIV POCT intervention using the INSTI rapid finger-prick test was implemented in London-based dental practices. Dental professionals were trained and subsequently delivered the HIV testing. Questionnaires were administered to all patients who were offered HIV testing.Results In total, 441 patients were offered HIV testing and 47.8% accepted. No reactive HIV test results were found. First-time testers accounted for one-third of all questionnaire respondents who had accepted testing. Patients found the intervention highly acceptable. The main reason to decline HIV test offers was perceived low risk of HIV infection.Conclusions Uptake of HIV testing in UK dental settings compares favourably with similar interventions in medical settings. Patient acceptability was high but the potential for the intervention to identify people with HIV in the population under study was uncertain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".