Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Attitudes Amongst Women Living with HIV Prior to a Self-Sampling Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Our objective was to determine the acceptability of and attitudes towards HPV self-sampling among women with HIV and investigate any associations between self-sampling attitudes and participant demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods: Women with HIV aged 18–45 were given a description of HPV self-sampling and instructions on how to self-collect the sample. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of the acceptability and comfort of HPV self-sampling before using the self-sampling methodology. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) for each statement. Participants’ characteristics were included in bivariate analysis. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess associations between questionnaire results and participant characteristics. Results: Of the 117 completed questionnaires, 79.6% of participants had a CD4+ T cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3. Participants’ median age was 39 (IQR 34–43). One hundred participants (85.5%) felt confident they could collect their samples correctly, and 77.8% did not think they would experience difficulties with self-collection. Most participants (68.4%) preferred to self-collect their sample instead of provider-collected sampling. Ninety-six participants (82.1%) agreed they would likely use self-collection methods for future cervical screening. Many participants were concerned about receiving a positive HPV result (68.4%), passing HPV on to their partner(s) (75.7%), and disclosing their HPV status to friends/family (49.6%). Conclusions: Women with HIV seem to be accepting of HPV self-sampling as a cervical cancer screening methodology; however, many participants were concerned about the implications associated with a positive HPV test result.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".