The Psychological Impact of Being Screened for Anal Cancer in HIV-Infected Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anal cancer screening may be considered in HIV-infected men who have sex with men because they are at increased risk. Cancer screening can provoke anxiety, which may lead to poorer screening compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the psychological consequences of anal cancer screening in HIV-infected men who have sex with men. DESIGN: This investigation is a prospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted in primary and tertiary care HIV clinics in Toronto, Canada. PATIENTS: One hundred four HIV-infected men who have sex with men were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Psychological impact was measured at 4 time points (before screening, after screening, after receiving results, and before follow-up) using the Impact of Events Scale, the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, and the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire. RESULTS: Median age was 44, 77% were receiving antiretroviral therapy, and 11% had high-grade anal dysplasia (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3). Fifteen to 32% of the patients reported high levels of negative psychological consequences across the 4 time points; the highest levels occurred at time 2. Higher HIV symptom count and baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher Impact of Events scores, whereas younger age and a higher baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher scores with use of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Anal cancer screening is not associated with greater adverse psychological impact in most HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Younger patients, those with more HIV-related symptoms and greater baseline psychological distress, are at risk for increased psychological distress during screening.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".