“Like Holding an Umbrella Before It Rains”: Acceptability of Future Rectal Microbicides Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in India—A Modified Technology Acceptance Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topical rectal microbicides (RMs) are a new prevention technology in development that aims to reduce the risk of HIV acquisition from anal sex. We examined RM acceptability among men who have sex with men (MSM) in India. We conducted a qualitative exploratory study guided by a modified Technology Acceptance Model, with 10 focus groups ( n = 61) of MSM and 10 key informant interviews. Data were explored using framework analysis. RM acceptability was influenced by technological contexts: perceived usefulness of RMs, perceived ease of use of RM and applicator, and habits around condom and lubricant use; individual and interpersonal contexts: perceived relevance and preferences for product formulation and dosing frequency; and MSM community/social contexts: perceived social approval, RM-related stigma, social support. Implementation of RMs for MSM in India may be supported by multi-level interventions that engage community-based organizations in destigmatizing and distributing RMs, ideally gel-based products that enable on-demand use before sex.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".