P3.419 Effect of Intervention Exposure on Self-Reported Condom Use Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Avahan HIV prevention intervention programme promotes condom use amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) in high HIV prevalence states in India. We assessed how self-reported condom use varies with intervention exposure for MSM in Bangalore. Methods Self-reported condom use and intervention exposure data came from a 2006 cross-sectional survey of MSM. Consistent condom use (CCU) with all, main, and casual male sex partners was assessed. Intervention exposure was measured by: whether MSM had been contacted by Avahan; duration since first contact; number of contacts in the past month; number of condoms received (log-transformed, as plots suggested a non-linear relationship); and number of condom demonstrations seen in the past month. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between each exposure variable and CCU with each partner type independently, controlling for demographic, socio-economic and behavioural factors associated with condom use. Results 77% of MSM contacted by Avahan reported CCU with all partners, compared with 55% of those not contacted (p = 0.019, adjusted analysis). CCU was not associated with duration since first intervention contact or with number of contacts by the intervention in the past month. CCU with all partners and casual (but not main) partners increased with the number of condoms received. CCU increased with the number of condom demonstrations seen in the last month, for all, main and casual partners (odds of CCU with each partner type increased by 1.7–2.4-fold for each additional condom demonstration, p < 0.001 overall). Conclusion Direct contact with the Avahan programme is associated with increased reported condom use amongst MSM in Bangalore. Although there is potential for social desirability bias, higher levels of reported condom use are associated with repeated contacts with the programme, particularly those involving demonstrations of correct condom use, and with receiving large numbers of condoms from the programme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".