Assessment of HIV-related risky behaviour: a comparative study of face-to-face interviews and polling booth surveys in the general population of Cotonou, Benin
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: During the 2008 HIV prevalence survey carried out in the general population of Cotonou, Benin, face-to-face interviews (FTFI) were used to assess risky behaviours for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STI). We compared sexual behaviours reported in FTFI with those reported in polling booth surveys (PBS) carried out in parallel in an independent random sample of the same population. METHODS: In PBS, respondents grouped by gender and marital status answered simple questions by putting tokens with question numbers in a green box (affirmative answers) or a red box (negative answers). Both boxes were placed inside a private booth. For each group and question, data were gathered together by type of answer. The structured and gender-specific FTFI guided by trained interviewers included all questions asked during PBS. Pearson χ2 or Fisher's exact test was used to compare FTFI and PBS according to affirmative answers. RESULTS: Overall, respondents reported more stigmatised behaviours in PBS than in FTFI: the proportions of married women and men who reported ever having had commercial sex were 17.4% and 41.6% in PBS versus 1.8% and 19.6% in FTFI, respectively. The corresponding proportions among unmarried women and men were 16.1% and 25.5% in PBS versus 3.9% and 13.0% in FTFI, respectively. The proportion of married women who reported having had extramarital sex since marriage was 23.6% in PBS versus 4.6% in FTFI. CONCLUSIONS: PBS are suitable to monitor reliable HIV/STI risk behaviours. Their use should be expanded in behavioural surveillance.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it