Chemsex among men who have sex with men in Germany: motives, consequences and the response of the support system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In Germany, drug use in sexual settings (i.e. chemsex) among men who have sex with men (MSM) has increasingly been the subject of discussion for considerable time. At the same time, however, little is known about this practice. It is against this background that what is currently known about chemsex among MSM in Germany is discussed. METHODS: The present study observations are essentially based on the results of two research projects of a qualitative-explorative nature. In-depth interviews with drug-using MSM (n=14), as well as qualitative, problem-centred interviews with drug-using MSM (n=75) and expert interviews (n=27) were conducted within these research projects. RESULTS: Chemsex is a minority behaviour among MSM in Germany. The reasons for using drugs in sexual settings are manifold. For the most part, the effects of the drugs are used to intensify sexual feelings and to achieve greater intimacy. Men who consider their consumption to be problematic, in particular, report a range of negative consequences, such as sexually transmissible infections. Even though chemsex is a minority behaviour, suitable offers of support are, hence, necessary, especially for these men. However, such offers are not yet available in most German cities. CONCLUSIONS: In order to close this gap in provision of support services, tangible practical steps, such as further training of people who work at drug and gay advisory services, are necessary, along with further research into the backgrounds and contexts of chemsex.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it