Gay and bisexual men's awareness and knowledge of treatment as prevention: findings from the Momentum Health Study in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Awareness and knowledge of treatment as prevention (TasP) was assessed among HIV-positive and HIV-negative gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Baseline cross-sectional survey data were analyzed for GBMSM enrolled, via respondent-driven sampling (RDS), in the Momentum Health Study. TasP awareness was defined as ever versus never heard of the term "TasP." Multivariable logistic regression identified covariates of TasP awareness. Among those aware of TasP, men's level of knowledge of TasP was explored through an examination of self-perceived knowledge levels, risk perceptions and short-answer definitions of TasP which were coded as "complete" if three TasP-related components were identified (i.e. HIV treatment, viral suppression and prevention of transmission). Information source was also assessed. Analyses were stratified by HIV status and RDS adjusted. RESULTS: Of 719 participants, 23% were HIV-positive, 68% Caucasian and median age was 33 (Interquartile range (IQR) 26,47). Overall, 46% heard of TasP with differences by HIV status [69% HIV-positive vs. 41% HIV-negative GBMSM (p<0.0001)]. In adjusted models: HIV-positive GBMSM were more likely to have heard of TasP if they were Canadian born, unemployed, not using party drugs and had higher CD4 counts; HIV-negative GBMSM were more likely to have heard of TasP if they were Caucasian (vs. Aboriginal), students, had higher education, a regular partner and multiple sexual partners. Among those aware of TasP 91% of HIV-positive and 69% of HIV-negative GBMSM (p<0.0001) felt they knew "a lot" or "a bit in general" about TasP; 64 and 41% (p=0.002) felt HIV treatment made the risk of transmission "a lot lower"; and 21 and 13% (p<0.0001) demonstrated "complete" TasP definitions. The leading information source was doctors (44%) for HIV-positive GBMSM and community agencies (38%) for HIV-negative GBMSM, followed by gay media for both populations (34%). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of GBMSM in this study reported having heard of TasP, yet only 14% demonstrated complete understanding of the concept. Variations in TasP awareness and knowledge by HIV status, and key socio-demographic, behavioural and clinical factors, highlight a need for health communication strategies relevant to diverse communities of GBMSM in order to advance overall TasP health literacy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".