P1-S5.16 Investigating self-reported level of condom use and condom use in last act among high-risk groups in Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Measuring consistent condom use (CCU) is crucial in understanding the trajectory of the HIV epidemic and in evaluating HIV preventive interventions that promote condom use. We examine how one measure of CCU varies across different populations, and compare it to condom use in the last sex act. Methods Using data from cross-sectional behavioural and biological surveys (2005–2007), we compare responses concerning self-reported level of condom use and condom use in the last act by female sex workers (FSWs), their clients, and men who have sex with men (MSM) in districts from Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu states in India. For FSWs/clients, the question related to sex with occasional clients/FSWs. For MSM, the question was for non-commercial, non-regular male partners. The time period was unspecified. Levels of condom use were defined as every time", “most of the time/sometimes”, and “never”. We define CCU as those who reply “every time”. Results 95.2% of all FSWs reported using a condom in the last act, compared to 72.9% of clients and 80.0% MSM. However, only 36.7% of clients and 29.6% of MSM reported CCU compared to 80.0% of FSWs. Abstract P1-S5-16 table 1 shows condom use in the last act stratified by reported level of condom use. For all populations reporting CCU “always”, condom use in the last act was >98%. Of those who reported “most of the time/sometimes”, there was a significant difference between condom use in the last act between clients and the other groups (χ 2 test, p<0.001), with clients using condoms less frequently. Condom use in the last act among those who “never” use a condom was low (<3%). Abstract P1-S5.16 Table 1 Results from IBBA surveys in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu states Report using a condom “every time” Report using a condom “sometimes/most of the time” Report using a condom “never” Used a condom in last sex act Report using a condom “every time” Report using a condom “sometimes /most of the time” Report using a condom “never” FSW 80.00% (4010) 19.01% (953) 0.96% (93) 98.28% 87.20% 2.08% Client 36.67% (1667) 48.20% (2191) 15.13% (688) 98.50% 75.58% 2.03% MSM 29.63% (621) 63.63% (1648) 12.39% (321) 99.36% 88.17% 1.25% Conclusions CCU may not accurately reflect number of acts protected by condoms. Among males in particular, dividing condom users into CCU and non-CCU neglects many who almost always use condoms, and so will still have a high degree of protection. These individuals are an important group to consider when evaluating the effect of changes in condom use on the HIV epidemic, especially among MSM. HIV prevention programmes should try to identify reasons explaining lower CCU among MSM and clients who already use condoms “most of the time/sometimes”, and endeavour to increase consistency within this group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".