MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029271840 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2013.856914

A Novel, Self-guided, Home-Based Intervention to Improve Condom Use Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men

2013· article· en· W2029271840 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta E. Emetu, Alexandra Marshall, Stephanie A. Sanders, William L. Yarber, Robin R. Milhausen, Richard A. Crosby, Cynthia A. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomMedicineMen who have sex with menIntervention (counseling)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Anal sexAnal intercoursePublic healthDemographyFamily medicinePsychological interventionGerontologyGynecologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested the efficacy of a brief, novel, theory-driven, self-guided, home-based intervention designed to promote condom use among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty YMSM were recruited from a large public US midwestern university during spring of 2012. METHODS: The intervention was tested using a repeated measures design with the primary follow-up assessment occurring 6 weeks after enrollment. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of men reported a reduced frequency of unprotected insertive penile-anal intercourse in the past 30 days compared with baseline (p = .01). Consistency of condom use improved (p = .013), as did motivation to use condoms correctly, condom use self-efficacy, and condom attitudes. All participants indicated that they were glad they participated, would recommend the program, and that overall, they had liked the program. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports an expanded trial of this intervention with MSM at high-risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections (HIV/STIs).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207