Behaviourally bisexual men as a bridge population for HIV and sexually transmitted infections? Evidence from a national probability survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the potential of behaviourally bisexual men (BBM) as a bridge population in sexually transmitted infection (STI)/HIV transmission by comparing sexual risk behaviours, attitudes and sexual health outcomes of BBM (defined as men who reported sex with men and women), with men who reported (i) exclusively male partners (MEMP) and (ii) exclusively female partners (MEFP), using a probability survey of the British general population aged 16-44 years, conducted between 1999 and 2001 (n = 5168 men). About 1.3% of men who reported sex in the past five years were BBM (44.1% of all men reporting male partners); 29.0% of BBM were married/cohabiting with women. Median partner numbers in this timeframe were seven among BBM, two among MEFP and 10 among MEMP. Similar proportions of BBM and MEMP reported STI diagnosis/es in the past five years, yet BBM were less likely than MEMP to report HIV-testing (odds ratio adjusted for sociodemographics: 0.31). BBM are thus mid-way between MEFP and MEMP in their sexual risk behaviour, but are similar to MEMP in reporting STI diagnosis/es. These data have implications for health promotion and partner notification, as BBM are unlikely to be appropriately targeted by safe-sex messages aimed at men identifying as gay.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".