The patient rationale for seeking <scp>HIV PEP</scp>: Qualitative results from a nurse‐led program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV PEP is an intervention to prevent HIV seroconversion among HIV-negative persons after they have come into contact with the virus. The literature suggests PEP is greater than 80% effective at reducing HIV seroconversion. To expand access to this prevention strategy, we established a nurse-led PEP program in two STI clinics. AIMS: We sought to explore why people seek PEP, and their experiences using it. MATERIALS & METHODS: We invited participants who used our PEP program to engage in semi-structured qualitative interviews. These were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the techniques of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twelve men who initiated PEP through our program participated in an interview. Thematic analysis of the data identified three themes: (1) assessing risk, (2) euphoria and distress, and (3) reducing distress. DISCUSSION: Based on our findings, it appears as though instances of condomless sex were atypical and unplanned, they occurred due to contextual factors (e.g., consent, desire to explore, sexual chemistry/intensity), and they resulted in a state of temporary euphoria, which, afterward, transformed into distress (i.e., "feel[ing] stupid"). The participants used PEP not only for HIV prevention, but also (and perhaps more so) to address their emotional state. PEP used seemed to primarily occur to address situations of atypical sexual contact with partners they did not "know" or "trust". CONCLUSION: We feel these results help contextualize how potential PEP users view HIV risk assessments, and how they determine their need for this intervention.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".