Factors Affecting the Uptake of HIV Testing among Men: A Mixed-Methods Study in Rural Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore factors shaping the decision to undergo Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) testing among men in rural Burkina Faso. METHODS: The study took place in 2009 in the Nouna Health District and adopted a triangulation mixed methods design. The quantitative component relied on data collected through a structured survey on a representative sample of 1130 households. The qualitative component relied on 38 in-depth interviews, with men purposely selected to represent variation in testing decision, age, and place of residence. A two-part model was conducted, with two distinct outcome variables, i.e. "being offered an HIV test" and "having done an HIV test". The qualitative data analysis relied on inductive coding conducted by three independent analysts. RESULT: Of the 937 men, 357 had been offered an HIV test and 97 had taken the test. Younger age, household wealth, living in a village under demographic surveillance, and knowing that HIV testing is available at primary health facilities were all positively associated with the probability of being offered an HIV test. Household wealth and literacy were found to be positively associated, and distance was found to be negatively associated with the probability of having taken an HIV test. Qualitative findings indicated that the limited uptake of HIV testing was linked to poor knowledge on service availability and to low risk perceptions. CONCLUSION: With only 10% of the total sample ever having tested for HIV, our study confirmed that male HIV testing remains unacceptably low in Sub-Saharan Africa. This results from a combination of health system factors, indicating general barriers to access, and motivational factors, such as one's own knowledge of service availability and risk perceptions. Our findings suggested that using antenatal care and curative services as the exclusive entry points into HIV testing may not be sufficient to reach large portions of the male population. Thus, additional strategies are urgently needed to increase service uptake.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".