Arts-based HIV and STI prevention intervention with Northern and Indigenous youth in the Northwest Territories: study protocol for a non-randomised cohort pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indigenous youth are disproportionately represented in new HIV infection rates in Canada. Current and historical contexts of colonisation and racism, disconnection from culture and land, as well as intergenerational trauma resulting from the legacy of residential schools are social drivers that elevate exposure to HIV among Indigenous peoples. Peer-education and arts-based interventions are increasingly used for HIV prevention with youth. Yet limited studies have evaluated longitudinal effects of arts-based approaches to HIV prevention with youth. The authors present a rationale and study protocol for an arts-based HIV prevention intervention with Northern and Indigenous youth in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre non-randomised cohort pilot study using a pretest/post-test design with a 12-month follow-up. The target population is Northern and Indigenous youth in 18 communities in the NWT. The aim is to recruit 150 youth using venue-based sampling at secondary schools. Participants will be involved in an arts-based intervention, Fostering Open eXpression among Youth (FOXY). Participants will complete a pretest, post-test survey directly following the intervention, and a 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome is new or enhanced HIV knowledge, and secondary outcomes to include: new or enhanced sexually transmitted infections knowledge, and increased self-esteem, resilience, empowerment, safer sex self-efficacy and cultural connectedness. Mixed effects regression analyses will be conducted to evaluate pretest and post-test differences in outcome measurement scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from the HIV Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto (REB: 31602). In addition, the project is currently registered in the NWT with the Aurora Research Institute (Licence: 15741). Trial results will be published according to the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomised Designs statement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02743026; Pre-results.
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 | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.007 |
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".