Patterns of sexual behaviour and sexual healthcare needs among transgender individuals in Melbourne, Australia, 2011–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Literature surrounding the healthcare needs of transgender individuals is limited in Australia. This study aimed to investigate the demographic characteristics, risk behaviours and HIV/STI positivity among male-to-female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) transgender individuals attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC), Australia, between 2011 and 2014. METHOD: A retrospective cohort analysis for 133 transgender individuals was conducted based on the first visit of individuals to MSHC during the study period. Demographic characteristics, sexual behaviours and HIV/STI positivity were examined. RESULTS: The majority of transgender individuals were single or never married (74%; n=99). Almost half of the individuals (47%; n=62) had ever engaged in sex work during their lifetime. The median number of male sexual partners (MSP) reported in the last 3 months was 1 (IQR: 1-2) and with female sexual partners (FSP) was 2 (IQR: 1-4). For those who reported having sexual partners in the previous 3 months, always using condoms with MSP was 31% (n=22), and that with FSP was 18% (n=2). HIV/STI positivity during the study period was 7% (n=8) for chlamydia, 5% (n=6) for gonorrhoea, 5% (n=5) for syphilis and 1% (n=1) for HIV. Hormone use for reassignment was reported by 63% (n=90) of individuals and reassignment surgery was reported by 27% (n=29+6=35). CONCLUSIONS: Transgender individuals in this study were found to be a diverse group, with a history of sex work being a common feature. These findings indicate that transgender individuals' sexual healthcare needs differ substantially from those in other countries, including the US and Canada. Attention to differences in MTF and FTM transgender persons must be considered in healthcare settings in Australia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".