“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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".