Predictors of HIV testing among men who have sex with men: a focus on men living outside major urban centres in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men who have sex with men (MSM) represent almost half of new HIV infections in Canada each year. However, the vast majority of research on HIV testing among MSM has been conducted in major urban centres. The present study addressed this gap by investigating HIV testing behaviour and predictors of HIV testing among MSM living outside major urban centres, in the Interior of British Columbia. An anonymous online survey of 153 MSM assessed HIV testing behaviour and psychosocial factors that may impact HIV testing (internalized homophobia, disclosure to healthcare providers (HCPs) of same sex attraction, and gay community involvement). Almost one-quarter (24%) had never been tested and over one-third (35%) had not disclosed same sex attraction to HCPs. Internalized homophobia was associated with a lower likelihood of HIV testing, and this relationship was partially explained by the fact that those high in internalized homophobia were less likely to disclose same sex attraction to their HCPs. Neither formal nor informal involvement in the gay community was related to HIV testing, and both types of involvement were relatively low in our sample. Further research is needed to better understand the distinctive health issues facing MSM living outside major urban centres.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".