Awareness and Uptake of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis and Postexposure Prophylaxis Among College Students With Sexual Experiences: Institutional-Based Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Evidence has shown that HIV prevalence among young people, especially college students, has increased disproportionately. Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) are two of the most effective ways to prevent HIV, which are vital for college students with sexual experiences who have sexual risks. Objective: To provide evidence for effective intervention to reduce the risk of HIV infection among young students, this study aimed to analyze the awareness and uptake of HIV PrEP and PEP among college students with sexual experiences. Methods: An institutional-based cross-sectional study design was used to collect data through an electronic questionnaire from college students in 5 colleges located in Zhejiang Province. A total of 21,962 college students were investigated, of which 2605 students with sexual experiences were included in the data analysis with the following information collected: sociodemographic characteristics, awareness and uptake of HIV PrEP and PEP, sexual behaviors, and HIV tests. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to explore the factors on seeking PrEP and PEP. Results: The average age of college students with sexual experiences was 21.25 (SD 2.75) years. Overall, 61.4% (n=1600) of the participants were aware of PrEP, and 53.0% (n=1380) of them were aware of PEP. Moreover, 5.6% (n=146) of them have sought PrEP or/and PEP, and 89.1% (n=2321) have not sought PrEP or PEP. College students who had more than 6 sexual partners, have always had unprotected sex, have subjective perceived risk behavior, and undergo HIV testing were more likely to seek PrEP or/and PEP. The main ways for the participants to learn PrEP and PEP were through school clubs, the internet, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, senior students and those who had not undergone an HIV test had a lower likelihood of seeking PrEP and PEP. College students who did not have risky sexual behaviors (odds ratio 0.468, P=.004) and homosexual students (odds ratio 0.318, P=.03) were more likely not to seek PEP. Conclusions: College students with sexual experiences rarely seek PrEP and PEP, with a relatively low awareness of PrEP and PEP. It is very important to increase the knowledge and uptake of PrEP and PEP by educational and behavioral interventions among young students at risk for HIV infection.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».