Determinants of condom use among HIV-positive men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of this study were to identify the determinants of condom use among HIV-positive men having anal sex with HIV-negative men or men of unknown HIV status and moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship. A cohort of 237 sexually active HIV-positive men having sex with men was followed over a period of six months. The cognitive variables measured were guided by an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour. Results indicated that past behaviour (odds ratio [OR] = 9.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.48-21.26), intention (OR = 3.13; 95% CI: 1.25-7.81), self-efficacy (OR = 3.62; 95% CI: 1.40-9.37) and use of sex drugs (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06-0.45) contributed to the prediction of 100% condom use. Self-efficacy also interacted with intention as a significant moderator of the intention-behaviour relationship (OR = 20.96; 95% CI: 2.90-151.51). Interventions promoting condom use should increase self-efficacy to use condoms and target users of sex drugs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".