Examining the health and health service utilization of heterosexual men with HIV: a community-informed scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of HIV infection among heterosexual men has increased. Consequently, the need for health and support services for this group is likely to increase. We conducted a scoping review of studies regarding the health and health service use of heterosexual men with HIV that was informed by research priorities identified by this community. We searched six databases from inception to August 2014. We included all English-language qualitative and quantitative studies examining the health and health service use of heterosexual men with HIV. Our search strategy yielded 2665 references, of which 70 were included in the scoping review. We summarized the research into the following domains identified by summit participants: treatment of HIV and its complications (n = 9), health and social support services utilization (n = 27), social determinants of health (n = 20), prevention (n = 11), family planning (n = 4) and psychosocial research (n = 33). Key findings from the review included poor mental health-related well-being, over-representation among "late presenters" to care and greater fear of disclosure of HIV status relative to men who have sex with men. In general, research conducted to date was not well aligned with the priorities identified by the community.
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 | 0.025 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".