Nonoccupational Postexposure HIV Prophylaxis in Sexual Assault Programs: A Survey of SANE and FNE Program Coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional study describes sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE)/forensic nurse examiner (FNE) program practices related to HIV testing, nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP), and common barriers to offering HIV testing and nPEP. A convenience sample of 174 SANE/FNE programs in the United States and Canada was drawn from the International Association of ForensicNurses database, and program coordinators completed Web-based surveys. Three fourths of programs had nPEP policies, 31% provided HIV testing, and 63% offered nPEP routinely or upon request. Using χ 2 and Fisher's exact tests, a greater proportion of Canadian programs had an nPEP protocol (p=.010), provided HIV testing (p= .004), and offered nPEP (p=.0001) than U.S.-based programs. Program coordinators rated providing pre- and/or posttest counseling and follow-up as the most important barrier to HIV testing, and medication costs as the most important barrier to providing nPEP. Our results indicate HIV-related services are offered inconsistently across SANE/FNE programs. © 2014 Association of Nurses in AIDS 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".