HIV status of sexual partners is more important than antiretroviral treatment related perceptions for risk taking by HIV positive MSM in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of antiretroviral treatment related perceptions relative to other clinical and psychosocial factors associated with sexual risk taking in HIV positive men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: Participants were recruited from ambulatory HIV clinics in Montreal. Information on sociodemographic factors, health status, antiretroviral treatment related perceptions, and sexual behaviours was collected using a self administered questionnaire. At-risk sexual behaviour was defined as at least one occurrence of unprotected insertive or receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the associations between at-risk sexual behaviour and covariates. RESULTS: 346 subjects participated in the study. Overall, 34% of subjects were considered at risk; 43% of sexually active subjects (n=274). At-risk sexual behaviour was associated with two antiretroviral treatment related perceptions: (1) taking antiretroviral treatment reduces the risk of transmitting HIV (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 2.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16 to 3.80); and (2) there is less safer sex practised by MSM because of HIV treatment advances (OR, 1.82; CI, 1.14 to 2.90). Other factors, however, were more strongly associated with risk. These were: (1) safer sex fatigue (OR, 3.23; CI, 1.81 to 5.78); (2) use of "poppers" during sexual intercourse (OR, 6.28; CI, 2.43 to 16.21); and (3) reporting a greater proportion of HIV positive anal sex partners, compared with reporting no HIV positive anal sex partners: (a) <50% HIV positive (OR, 16.79; CI, 4.70 to 59.98); (b) > or =50% HIV positive (OR, 67.67; CI, 15.43 to 296.90). CONCLUSION: Despite much emphasis on HIV treatment related beliefs as an explanation for sexual risk taking in MSM, this concern may play a relatively minor part in the negotiation of risk by HIV positive MSM. Serosorting, safer sex fatigue, and the use of poppers appear to be more important considerations in understanding the sexual risk behaviours of HIV positive MSM.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".