Preparedness for use of the rapid result <scp>HIV</scp> self‐test by gay men and other men who have sex with men (<scp>MSM</scp>): a mixed methods exploratory study among <scp>MSM</scp> and those involved in <scp>HIV</scp> prevention and care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to explore preparedness for the HIV self-test among men who have sex with men (MSM) and those involved in HIV prevention and care. METHODS: A mixed methods exploratory research design was employed, detailing awareness and willingness to use the self-test and the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation. Quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis were completed in parallel. Descriptive and inferential analysis of cross-sectional bar-based survey data collected from MSM through a self-completed questionnaire and oral fluid specimen collection (n = 999) was combined with qualitative, thematic, analysis of data collected through 12 expert focus groups (n = 55) consisting of gay men, National Health Service (NHS) staff, community organizations, entrepreneurs and activists. Findings were subsequently combined and assessed for synergies. RESULTS: Among MSM, self-test awareness was moderate (55%). Greater awareness was associated with increased educational attainment [adjusted odds ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.30; P = 0.05] and previous history of sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing (adjusted odds ratio 1.63; 95% CI 1.11-2.39; P = 0.01). Willingness to use the test was high (89%) and associated with meeting sexual partners online (unadjusted odds ratio 1.96; 95% CI 1.31-2.94; P < 0.001). Experts highlighted the overall acceptability of self-testing; it was understood as convenient, discreet, accessible, and with a low burden to services. However, some ambivalence towards self-testing was reported; it could reduce opportunities to engage with wider services, wider health issues and the determinants of risk. CONCLUSIONS: Self-testing represents an opportunity to reduce barriers to HIV testing and enhance prevention and access to care. Levels of awareness are moderate but willingness to use is high. Self-testing may amplify health inequalities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".