HIV risk perception and distribution of HIV risk among African, Caribbean and other Black people in a Canadian city: mixed methods results from the BLACCH study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: African, Caribbean and other Black (ACB) people are a priority group for HIV prevention in Canada, but little is known about the epidemiology of HIV risk in this population. This paper helps fill the knowledge gap by: presenting service providers' and ACB people's perceptions about HIV risk in ACB populations; describing the distribution of HIV risk behaviours among ACB people according to markers of social status and position; and comparing results from these two analyses. METHODS: The Black, African and Caribbean Canadian Health (BLACCH) Study is a mixed methods study that used semi-structured interviews and a cross-sectional quantitative questionnaire to collect information about HIV and health from 188 ACB people in London, Ontario, Canada. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify interview themes, and weighted bivariate statistical analyses were performed on the quantitative data. Behaviours related to HIV risk were stratified by sex, poverty status, immigration experience and employment status. RESULTS: Community members perceived that they were at low risk for HIV and mainly focused on sexual risks. They called for more information about HIV in Canada and culturally appropriate HIV services. Service providers cited marital infidelity and cultural and religious attitudes about condoms as barriers to women protecting themselves. They mentioned cultural norms, beliefs about masculinity and underrepresentation of heterosexual ACB men at AIDS service organizations as barriers to men protecting themselves. There were few statistically significant differences in risk behaviours reported by men and women. Those living in poverty were more likely to abstain from sex (p = 0.006) and use condoms (p = 0.027) in the past year. Those living in Canada longer reported higher prevalences of forced sex (p < 0.001), mixing alcohol or drugs with sex (p = 0.001) and past STI diagnoses (p = 0.032). Stable employment was associated with higher prevalences of not using condoms in the past year (p = 0.005) and past STI diagnoses (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that perceptions about ACB people's HIV risk differ from actual risk, and those with higher social standing might be at greater risk. Furthermore, the social determinants of health are important factors in the epidemiology of HIV among ACB people.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".