Awareness and Understanding of HIV Non-disclosure Case Law and the Role of Healthcare Providers in Discussions About the Criminalization of HIV Non-disclosure Among Women Living with HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people with HIV are legally obligated to disclose their serostatus before sex with a “realistic possibility” of HIV transmission, suggesting a legal obligation to disclose unless they use condoms and have a low HIV viral load (< 1500 copies/mL). We measured prevalence and correlates of ruling awareness among 1230 women with HIV enrolled in a community-based cohort study (2015–2017). While 899 (73%) participants had ruling awareness, only 37% were both aware of and understood ruling components. Among 899 aware participants, 34% had never discussed disclosure and the law with healthcare providers, despite only 5% being unwilling to do this. Detectable/unknown HIV viral load, lack of awareness of prevention benefits of antiretroviral therapy, education ≤ high-school and high HIV-related stigma were negatively associated with ruling awareness. Discussions around disclosure and the law in community and healthcare settings are warranted to support women with HIV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".