Understanding the Impact of Childhood Sexual Abuse on Men’s Risk Behavior: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) remains a critical public health issue among black and Latino men who have sex with men (MSM), as it is associated with multiple negative outcomes including substance misuse, poor mental health, revictimization, and high-risk sexual behavior. Most CSA research with MSM relies on quantitative assessment that often precludes consideration of cultural variations in how formative sexual experiences are understood and is based on inconsistent or overly restrictive definitions of abuse, and therefore may fail to detect certain abusive experiences (eg, those involving female perpetrators), which can have harmful health consequences if they remain unrecognized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to overcome existing limitations in the literature by drawing on perspectives of black and Latino MSM and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW), as well as relevant service providers to better understand the role of, and the need to include, sexual abuse histories (eg, CSA) in treatment and counseling settings, with the long-term goal of improving assessment and health outcomes. METHODS: We will conduct mixed-methods interviews, framed by an intersectionality approach, with 80 black and Latino men (40 MSM and 40 MSMW) in New York City (NYC), exploring appraisals of their formative sexual experiences, including those described as consensual but meeting criteria for CSA. We will also interview 30 local service providers representing substance abuse treatment, mental health care, and HIV prevention and outreach. RESULTS: The study was launched in May 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This formative research will inform testable approaches to assessing and incorporating sexual abuse history into substance abuse treatment and other health and mental health services used by men with such histories.
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 | 0.079 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.015 |
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".