HIV Prevention Needs of African, Caribbean and Other Black Men and Women: Findings from the BLACCH Study Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Definitions of masculinity and femininity and gender roles impact how individuals access, interpret and use HIV prevention messages in African, Caribbean and other Black (ACB) communities. These differences must be considered when designing prevention interventions. OBJECTIVE: To explore sex-based differences in ACB peoples’ HIV prevention needs. METHODS: Using a community-based approach, a purposive sample of 22 ACB community members (CM) and 8 service providers (SP) in London, Ontario was interviewed about health. Respondents represented a cross-section of ACB communities and SPs serving these communities. HIV-specific topics included: awareness, perceived risk, risk behaviours, barrier to accessing services and service needs. Interviews were divided by sex (12 female, 10 male CMs; 6 female, 2 male SPs) and analysed using qualitative content analysis to identify themes. FINDINGS: Men had greater awareness about HIV than women. Women believed their risk of contracting HIV was very low or zero due to marriage and abstinence. Men and women recognized sexual behaviours as risk factors for infection. Women also said alcohol and drug use were risk factors. Men and women said stigma and fear were barriers to accessing HIV services. Women cited literacy and discrimination as additional barriers; men cited mental health and culture. Women called for more condoms and Canadian HIV statistics. Men called for culturally-based services and family testing. Female and male SPs cited female disempowerment as a barrier to protection for women, and low condom use was a barrier for ACB men. Female SPs said ACB men need male SPs that they would access. DISCUSSION: It appears that education, awareness, and empowerment efforts specific to ACB women are needed. Information is needed about straight ACB men, and it is important to encourage them to access HIV services. A quantitative survey complements these findings; these data will be used in a needs assessment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".