Bibliographic record
Abstract
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, the Canadian Medical Association, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have recommended that HIV screening be offered to all pregnant women regardless of risk. However, the extent of compliance with these recommendations is unknown and the experience of pregnant women is not well described. Using a variety of methodologies including feminist qualitative interviews, this dissertation examines the issue of prenatal HIV screening from a number of different perspectives. Physician compliance with the recommendations for prenatal HIV screening and their attitudes to this intervention are described. The experience of pregnant women offered screening is articulated through a qualitative analysis of their recollections. A chronological analysis of the policy process in the province is performed, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis at two levels of seroprevalence. While physicians agree with the recommendations to offer screening to all pregnant women, the consistency with which they actually offer the test is variable. Pregnant women are also supportive of this intervention and will do whatever they can to ensure a healthy outcome of the pregnancy. The policy for screening in Manitoba is one of universal offering of the test with voluntary uptake and informed consent. Findings from this study support the present policy. Screening is cost-effective in both areas of high and low seroprevalence. Pregnant women, while appearing to have choices in their health care, in reality have limitations placed on their choices by lack of comprehensive information and a desire to be "good" patients. Health care providers, while striving to provide comprehensive care, are also limited by time constraints. Implications for practice, education, and research are suggested to address many of these issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".