Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We read with great interest the article published by Zhu et al.[1]. The authors have addressed an important question regarding sexual behaviour in the context of advances in HIV treatment. In their article, the authors report that prior to the availability of HAART, the odds of subsequent engagement in sex with at least two partners, among MSM, decreased after seroconversion. Seroconversion after the widespread availability of HAART was associated with further reduced odds in engaging in these sexual behaviours. These findings challenge the current discussions regarding the association between HIV treatment advances and sexual behaviour. The study drew on data from 4616 MSM collected between 1984 and 2008, comparing men who seroconverted prior to the availability of HAART and after. Given the design of their study, it is still unclear whether the findings are associated with availability of antiretroviral therapy or the temporal trends in sexual behaviour in the United States over this time period [2]. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved emtricitabine/tenofovir for reducing the risk of HIV transmission through sexual activity. Since then, discussions have emerged regarding whether widespread use of emtricitabine/tenofovir as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) contributes to riskier sexual behaviour among populations already at a high risk of acquiring HIV, a concept termed ‘risk compensation’ [3]. On the basis of this concept, people taking PrEP or HIV treatment would perceive a reduced risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV and thus will engage in riskier sexual behaviour; however, the authors have shown that for HIV treatment, this reasoning is not applicable in the cohort studied. Qualitative research exploring the complexities of risk-taking has begun to describe the diverse ways in which PrEP influences sexual-wellbeing from the perspective of MSM [4]. From the limited research that exists, the perceived impacts of PrEP on sexual behaviour vary and may in fact fluctuate over the course of one's life. Hence, it would be valuable to re-examine the cohort described by Zhu et al.[1] for changes in sexual behaviour in the current context of treatment as prevention [5] and PrEP availability. Although limitations of the study constrain the conclusions that can be drawn to MSM, if the authors have access to data from the cohort after 2012, it would be worthwhile to examine and comment on whether sexual behaviours among this cohort have changed since the availability of PrEP. Furthering our understanding of how treatment as prevention and PrEP alter sexual behaviour could aid in directing HIV policy and future research. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,020 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».