Adaptation, feasibility and performance of a brief clinic-based intervention to improve prevention practices among sexual minority men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are disproportionately affected by sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs). Originally efficacious with young Black GBM in the United States, Focus on the Future (FoF) is a clinic-based, single session intervention aimed at improving prevention practices. We examined the applicability and acceptability of the program for ethnoracially diverse GBM. Participants were recruited from a GBM sexual health clinic in Vancouver. A pre-test, post-test repeated measures design was used with a single intervention arm. Twenty-five HIV-negative participants received the intervention and retention at 90-day follow-up was 92%. Mean age was 27.8 years (SD = 3.53), 54.2% were non-white. The intervention was highly acceptable: 86.9% liked it and 91.3% would recommend it to others. A number of positive outcomes were observed post-intervention such as higher scores on the correct condom-use self-efficacy scales (p = 0.03) and increased condom-use frequency with primary partners (p = 0.03). The main outcome was number of condom-protected anal intercourse events for both insertive and receptive sexual positions; there was no significant difference for either the insertive (p = 0.62) or receptive (p = 0.36) partner. However, when restricted to participants who were not using PrEP, there was a significant increase in the number of condom-protected receptive anal sex events (p = 0.02). Although not an intended effect of the intervention program, 30% (n = 6/20) of PrEP-naïve participants initiated PrEP during the 90-day follow-up. This adapted low-cost intervention was rated highly acceptable by participants and demonstrates promise for increasing STBBI prevention practices. Expanded intervention testing and implementation research is warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".