Knowledge, Attitude, Behavior, and Practices Regarding HIV, Viral Hepatitis, and Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Migrants From Sub-Saharan Africa Living in Germany: A Multicenter Survey Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migration has an impact on the epidemiology of viral hepatitis B and C (HEP) and HIV in Germany; migrants from sub-Saharan Africa (MisSA) in Germany are disproportionally affected by HIV. In the last 10 years, a total of 10%-15% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases were among MisSA; 20%-30% of them acquired HIV in Germany. Prevalence of HEP among MisSA in Germany is unknown, but Western Africa, from where most MisSA in Germany originate, reports the highest prevalence of hepatitis B worldwide. There is limited information on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and practices (KABP) regarding HIV, HEP, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as MisSA are not reached with surveys targeting the general population. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the HIV, HEP, and STI information and prevention needs of MisSA in Germany. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional, KABP survey regarding HIV, HEP, and STIs among MisSA living in Germany using convenience sampling. The study design was developed as a community-based participatory health research (CBPHR) project; HIV/STI-prevention specialists, key persons from MisSA communities, and HIV/STI researchers were involved in all steps of the research process. Trained peer researchers recruited participants in six study cities. Potential modes of survey administration were interview or self-completion, and the questionnaire was available in English, French, and German. Questions on knowledge about HIV, HEP, and STIs were presented as true statements; participants were asked if they had known the information before. Focus groups with MisSA were conducted to interpret results. Data collection took place from October 2014 to November 2016. RESULTS: Recruitment by peer researchers concluded with 3040 eligible participants. Data collection was completed in November 2016. We are currently analyzing the quantitative data and qualitative data from focus groups. We are conducting working group meetings to discuss the results in the respective study cities and to evaluate the application of participatory health research in epidemiological studies. First results are expected by the end of 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Working with peer researchers to collect data allowed accessibility to a diverse sample of MisSA and, particularly, allowed us to reach vulnerable subgroups, such as MisSA without legal status. The ability to access hard-to-reach groups is one of the big advantages of CBPHR. The active inclusion of the persons under study in the design of the study resulted in higher acceptance and ownership of the research project in the target community; this ultimately lead to better quality of collected data. Furthermore, the participation of MisSA in the development of study design and data collection assures a better understanding of the interests, needs, and living conditions of this group.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".