Use of respondent-driven sampling to access Winnipeg street-involved youth for the purpose of urine-based chlamydia and gonorrhea testing and treatment in non-clinical venues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Street-involved youth have a high prevalence of chlamydia and gonorrhea and experience barriers to testing and treatment.This population is difficult to access by traditional means.ln the present study, the effectiveness of Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) for accessing street-involved youth and the use of urine-based testing in non- clinical venues is investigated.Methods: Street-involved youth aged L4-24 were selected as seeds to recruit their peers into the study using RDS.A questionnaire was administered, a urine specimen obtained, and recruitment coupons provided to participants.A week later, participants received test results and treatment.RDS Analysis Tool was used to assess the use of RDS and define the social structure.Fisher's Exact test was used to identify correlates of infection.Results: Most participants provided a urine specimen and73o/o returned to obtain their results.Among those who returned, 83Yo reported distributing recruitment coupons and 43Yo of pafücipants recruited at least one person.However, the majority of recruitment chains were short.Street-involved youth are connected to those who share similar health related behaviors.The sample prevalence of chlamydia and/or gonorrhea infection was 15o/o,with female gender associated with infection.Participants congregated Downtown and at one particular mall.Conclusions: Urine-based testing in non-clinical venues is acceptable to street-involved youth.RDS is an effective method to access street-involved youth, but would be more useful with fewer, more productive seeds.There is a need for increased testing options in this group, and an ideal location for services designed for street-involved youth is Downtown and at the particular mall in which they commonly spend time.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".