Knowledge and awareness of HIV self-testing among Australian gay and bisexual men: a comparison of never, sub-optimal and optimal testers willingness to use.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the willingness to use and pay for HIV Self-testing (HIVST) among Australian gay and bisexual men (GBM). Bivariate and univariate multinominal logistic regression of data from an online survey was performed. Thirty-one (13%) had never HIV tested and 41.9% (88) were testing sub-optimally by Australian guidelines. Half (58.4%, 136) had never heard of HIVST, however, 56.2% (131) reported willingness to use HIVST, with sub-optimal (OR=2.13; p < 0.01) and never-testers (OR=2.01; p < 0.10) significantly more likely to do so than optimal-testers. Most were confident (51.7%, 119) or somewhat confident (29.1%, 67) accessing support following a reactive result, however, never-testers were significantly less confident compared to previous testers (OR=3.47; p< 0.05). Less than a quarter (23.6%, 57) were willing to pay for a kit with AUD$15 (R2 = 0.9882) the estimated preferred price. This research confirms that HIVST is an important and accepted adjunct to established HIV testing modalities, particularly among sub-optimal and never-testers and that online (61.6%, 143) or clinic-based (61.6%, 143) dissemination are preferred. Research examining how best to disseminate HIVST in a range of safe and effective models needs to continue to ensure HIVST is part of a comprehensive strategy that facilitates usage and linkages to care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".