Awareness and understanding of HIV non-disclosure case law among people living with HIV who use illicit drugs in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background—In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that people living with HIV (PLWH) could face criminal charges if they did not disclose their serostatus before sex posing a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission. Condom-protected vaginal sex with a low (i.e., <1500 copies/mL) HIV viral load (VL) incurs no duty to disclose. Awareness and understanding of this ruling remain uncharacterized, particularly among marginalized PLWH. Methods—We used data from ACCESS, a community-recruited cohort of PLWH who use illicit drugs in Vancouver. The primary outcome was self-reported awareness of the 2012 SCC ruling, drawn from cross-sectional survey data. Participants aware of the ruling were asked how similar their understanding was to a provided definition. Sources of information from which participants learned about the ruling were determined. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors independently associated with ruling awareness. Results—Among 249 participants (39% female), median age was 50 (IQR: 44–55) and 80% had a suppressed HIV VL (<50 copies/mL). A minority (112, 45%) of participants reported ruling awareness, and 44 (18%) had a complete understanding of the legal obligation to disclose. Among those aware (n = 112), newspapers/media (46%) was the most frequent source from which participants learned about the ruling, with 51% of participants reporting that no healthcare providers had talked to them about the ruling. Ruling awareness was negatively associated with VL suppression (AOR:0.51, 95% CI:0.27,0.97) and positively associated with recent condomless sex vs. no sex (AOR:2.00, 95% CI:1.03,3.92).Conclusion—Most participants were not aware of the 2012 SCC ruling, which may place them at risk of prosecution. Discussions about disclosure and the law were lacking in healthcare settings. Advancing education about HIV disclosure and the law is a key priority. The role of healthcare providers in delivering information and support to PLWH in this legal climate should be further explored.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".