Religion and HIV Sexual Risk Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Religion can profoundly impact the sociocultural contexts that shape sexual HIV vulnerability among men who have sex with men (MSM). However, the relationship between religion and HIV vulnerability remains poorly understood for MSM in China, where religious affiliations and practices are rapidly increasing. METHODS: Using cross-sectional survey data collected in Beijing and Tianjin, China, from 2013 to 2014 (n = 400), this study tests 3 hypotheses regarding religion and HIV sexual risk: (1) HIV vulnerabilities and testing patterns among religiously affiliated MSM are lower than for areligious MSM, (2) religiosity is inversely associated with HIV vulnerabilities and testing, and (3) the magnitude of inverse association between religiosity and HIV vulnerabilities/testing will be stronger among Christian and Muslim MSM than Buddhist and areligious MSM. RESULTS: Compared with areligious participants, Buddhists had higher odds of reporting unprotected anal intercourse [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13 to 3.75] and more male sex partners (AOR: 1.95, 1.16-3.27), whereas Muslims had lower odds of reporting unprotected anal intercourse (AOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.73) and higher odds of reporting male circumcision (AOR: 3.04, 95% CI: 1.45 to 6.40). Reporting of forced sex was associated with more frequent participation in social religious activities (AOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.52) and private religious activities (AOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.61). Among Christians, participation in private religious activities was associated with lower odds of reporting anal intercourse (AOR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The sustained growth of multiple religious traditions in China appears to have important implications for HIV vulnerability among religious minority MSM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".