P1-S2.31 Mean streets vs main street - more street youth report STIs, multiple sexual partners and lower condom use compared to their peers in the general population
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and engagement in high risk behaviours is assumed to be greater in street-involved youth (SIY) than the general population, but the magnitude of this difference has rarely been described. Methods Preliminary data from four sites (n=734) of E-SYS cycle 6 (Enhanced Surveillance of Street Youth, 2009-present) and the corresponding metropolitan centres of CCHS 2009 (Canadian Community Health Survey) were analysed. E-SYS is a repeated cross-sectional study of SIY (15–24 years), who completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire and provided blood and urine samples for STI, HIV and HCV testing. CCHS is a representative cross-sectional over the phone survey of Canadians, which collects data on health determinants and status. The CCHS sample was restricted to youth aged 15–24 years (weighted n=708 589, unweighted n=780). Estimates of self-reported STIs, sexual behaviours, substance use and demographics are reported with 95% CIs and IQRs. Results Compared to their peers in the general population, a greater proportion of SIY were male, between 15 and 19 years old, Aboriginal, Canadian-born, without a high school diploma and have higher rates of regular binge drinking, smoking and illicit drug use (Abstract P1-S2.31 table 1). A greater proportion of SIY (23.8% vs 3.5%) reported sexualities other than straight/heterosexual. A higher proportion of SIY had had sexual intercourse (95.5% vs 67.4%) and had been diagnosed with an STI (18.7% vs 3.8%). Sexually active SIY reported a lower proportion of condom use at last intercourse (35.4% vs 52.3%). The median age at first intercourse was 14 years among SIY and 17 years among youth in the general population. The median number of sexual partners for youth in the general population was one (last 12 months) compared to two partners for SIY (last 3 months). Abstract P1-S2.31 Table 1 Demographics, use of illicit drugs and alcohol, and sexual behaviours among youth aged 15–24 years who took part in Canadian Community Health Survey 2009 (CCHS) and Enhanced Surveillance of Street Youth (E-SYS) cycle 6. CCHS 2009 (Percentage, 95% CI E-SYS Cycle 6 (Percentage, 95% CI) Demographics Males 52.81 (52.69 to 52.93) 63.39 (59.78 to 66.88) Age 15–19 years 38.67 (38.26 to 38.49) 56.87 (53.27 to 60.47) Aboriginal 6.22 (6.16 to6.28) 41.55 (37.99 to 45.12) Born in Canada 75.47 (75.37 to 75.57) 93.44 (91.65 to 95.24) High School Completion* 93.87 (93.82 to 93.92) 25.81 (21.69 to 29.92) Drugs and Alcohol Binge Drink Regularly† 10.57 (10.50 to 10.65) 34.65 (31.15 to 38.15) Smoke Daily 11.86 (11.65 to 11.80) 76.13 (73.23 to 79.18) Illicit Drug use Last 12P1-S2.07 months‡ 24.86 (24.77 to 24.95) 94.28 (92.34 to 95.85) Sexual Behaviours Sexuality - “Straight” or “Heterosexual” 96.57 (96.54 to 96.60) 76.16 (73.08 to 79.24) Ever Had Intercourse 60.84 (60.72 to 60.95 95.5 (94.01 to 97.00) Age First Intercourse (Median, IQR in Years) § 17 (16 to 18) 14 (13 to 16) Condom Use Last Intercourse§ 52.34 (52.24 to 52.45) 35.42 (40.14 to 47.32) Number of partners (Median, IQR)§,¶ 1 (1 to 2) 2 (1 to 3) Ever had an STI§ 3.83 (3.79 to 3.87) 18.74 (15.91 to 21.57) Note - Preliminary data analysis only comes four E-SYS sites and corresponding census metropolitan areas from CCHS. * Among those aged 19 and over. † Binge drinking more than once a week. ‡ Excludes using cannabis once. § Asked from only those who indicated having had sexual intercourse. ¶ Last 3 months for ESYS, Last 12 months for CCHS. Conclusions Street-involved youth are more vulnerable to the social determinants of health, which partly explains the marked differences between them and their peers in the general Canadian population. Lower levels of education and other structural factors, combined with higher levels of substance use and riskier sexual practices may contribute to the higher burden of STIs among SIY. The magnitude of differences between the two groups highlights the need for continued efforts using a multi-sectoral approach to address the needs of this population though targeted interventions and programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».