Perceived HIV risk, actual sexual HIV risk and willingness to take pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduces HIV acquisition. Our goal was to determine the willingness of men who have sex with men (MSM) to take PrEP given perceived and actual HIV risk. HIV-negative MSM were recruited from September 2010 to June 2012 and asked about PrEP willingness and perceived HIV risk. Actual sexual HIV risk was measured by three condom-use components generated through principal components analysis. General HIV risk was measured using the HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM (HIRI-MSM). Model 1 measured PrEP willingness given perceived and actual sexual HIV risk. Model 2 included actual HIV sexual risk, perceived HIV risk and general HIV risk. Model 3 removed actual sexual HIV risk. We recruited 150 HIV-negative MSM. About 55% were willing to take PrEP. Reasons for PrEP unwillingness were: low perceived risk (64%), side-effect concerns (44%), daily pill burden (16%) and efficacy concerns (4%). Model 1: MSM with high compared to low actual sexual HIV risk were more willing to use PrEP (OR 27.11, 95% CI 1.33-554.43) after adjusting for perceived risk, which was not significantly associated with PrEP willingness (OR 4.79, 95% CI 0.72-31.96). Model 2: MSM with high compared to low actual sexual HIV risk were more willing to use PrEP (OR 29.85, 95% CI 1.39-640.53) after adjusting for perceived and general HIV risk, neither of which was significantly associated with PrEP willingness (OR 5.07, 95% CI 0.73-35.09) and (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.37-6.79), respectively. Model 3: After removing actual sexual HIV risk, MSM with high compared to low perceived risk were more willing to use PrEP (OR 6.85, 95% CI 1.23-38.05), and the HIRI-MSM general risk index was not associated with PrEP willingness (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.54-6.54). Therefore, actual sexual HIV risk was the best predictor of PrEP willingness and general HIV risk did not inform PrEP willingness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".