An intervention study assessing a peer outreach model to promote safer-sex for tourism workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourism destinations provide unique social contexts which foster sexual risk-taking. Banff, Alberta, Canada is one such destination with high rates of STI and risk-taking, particularly among tourism workers (TWs).Twenty-five TWs (14 women and 11 men) completed a single session intervention designed to promote the consistent and correct use of condoms. The intervention, comprised of motivational and skills-based training and the provision of a range of high-quality condoms and lubricants, was delivered in a one-to-one format in community settings. Pre- and post-intervention (three weeks following) paper and pencil questionnaires were administered. Sexual experience barriers to condom use significantly decreased (P<.001) after the intervention and confidence in condom use negotiation (P=.005) significantly increased. Confidence in using condoms without loss of pleasure (P=.001) also significantly increased. The number of condom use errors significantly decreased (P<.001). All except two of the behavioral outcomes were also significant: TWs were more likely to discuss condom use before having sex (P=.025), more likely to report condom use the last time sex occurred (P=.005), and more likely to add lubrication to condoms for penile-vaginal sex (P=.027). Significant changes in frequency of unprotected penile-anal sex and frequency of unprotected penile-vaginal sex were not observed; however a large effect size was observed relative to decreases in unprotected penile-vaginal sex. Together the behavioural outcomes and psychosocial outcomes suggest the potential utility for this single session program to be applied in other tourist destinations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".