Testing women as mothers : the policy and practice of prenatal HIV testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The convergence of compelling evidence that transmission of HIV from a pregnant woman living with HIV to her foetus can be significantly interrupted due to advances in antiretroviral and obstetrical interventions, and worrisome epidemiologic data documenting a rise in HIV infection among Canadian women, spurred the development in Canada and world wide of policies and programmes aimed at increasing the number of pregnant women who are tested for HIV. Responding to innovative therapy reducing perinatal HIV transmission risk by increasing the number of pregnant women who agree to test for HIV is clearly an important prevention objective. However, the process must be accomplished in a way that is of most benefit to the pregnant woman herself and in a way that does not compromise a pregnant woman's rights to the established Canadian principles of HIV counselling and testing. Working with pregnant women in Ontario, the province with the highest level of HIV infection among Canadian women, this thesis articulates and interprets their experiences of prenatal HIV counselling and testing and details their perspectives on best practices. The pregnant women's evidence-based recommendations for the re-design of prenatal HIV testing programmes are provided. These unique data have important utility for federal and provincial policy makers as HIV counselling and testing policies and programmes that encompass and are grounded in pregnant womens' experiences and perspectives are likely to be maximally acceptable and thereby increase the number of pregnant women who can be apprised of prophylactic treatment to take care of their own health needs as well as those of their unborn children. In order for pregnant women to increase control over their own health and that of their unborn children, there is clear value in all pregnant women being afforded the opportunity to know their HIV status. However, the voices of the women in this study suggest that the autonomy rights of pregnant women may well be at risk in a programme in which the current emphasis is on potential HIV infection of the foetus rather than on potential or actual infection of the pregnant woman.
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 | 0.028 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".