Behavioral and Demographic Profiles of HIV Transmission and Exposure Networks in Florida: Network Analysis of HIV Contact Tracing Data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: To complete the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in areas with high HIV incidence, there needs to be a greater understanding of the demographic, behavioral, and geographic factors that influence the rate of new HIV diagnoses. This information will aid the creation of targeted prevention and intervention efforts. Objective: This study aims to identify the geographic distribution of risk groups and their role within potential transmission networks in Florida. Methods: Public data from the Florida Department of Health and behavioral data from the Surveillance Tools and Reporting System between 2012 and 2022 were used in these analyses. We analyzed records as a combination of variables of interest (gender, age, race or ethnicity, and HIV risk group) to create demographic-behavioral profiles (DBPs) that represent the profiles of people newly diagnosed with HIV. We then used the resulting DBPs to characterize Florida counties and HIV coordination areas and calculated the county-to-county and area-to-area rank (Spearman) correlation. We then drew a dendrogram based on the correlation matrix and identified clusters of similar counties and areas. Lastly, network analysis used HIV contact tracing data from the Surveillance Tools and Reporting System to identify HIV transmission and exposure contact networks and characterized large networks by DBPs and geolocation. Results: We identified 37 DBPs. The largest DBPs were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black males aged 25-49 reporting male-to-male sexual contact (n=7539 and n=4329, respectively), non-Hispanic White males aged 25-49 reporting male-to-male sexual contact (n=4221), and non-Hispanic Black females aged 25-49 reporting heterosexual contact (n=3371). The state could be broken up generally into 2 transmission and exposure clusters by region: Northwestern or Northern and Central or Southern. We identified several counties with similar DBPs that were not in the same HIV coordination area. A total of 3097 contact networks were identified among 7944 people with HIV contact tracing data. Most (n=2508, 81%) networks involve only 2 people, 11% (n=349) involve 3 people, 7% (n=224) involve 4 to 19 people, and 6 networks involve 20 or more people. As network size increases, the proportion of people within the network who identify as female, non-Hispanic Black, aged older than 50 years, and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact decreases. Conclusions: We identified distinct risk groups and clusters of transmission and exposure throughout Florida. These results can help regions identify health disparities and allocate their HIV prevention and intervention resources accordingly. The goal of this work was to highlight areas of need in a high-incidence setting, not to contribute to existing stigma against vulnerable groups, and it is important to consider the ethics and possible harm of advanced methodologies such as contact network analysis when addressing public health problems.
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 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».