1300. Young Heterosexual Men in Rural South Africa Want Access to PrEP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background While many HIV prevention services in South Africa specifically support women and girls, substantial gaps exist in HIV prevention, testing and treatment services targeting men and boys. We aimed to characterize HIV prevention knowledge, sexual-risk behaviors and interest in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among young men in rural KwaZulu-Natal. Methods Men were identified at community settings such as taverns, fast-food restaurants, and local stores. Interviews were conducted confidentially and anonymously in Zulu, and were recorded, translated and transcribed. Transcripts were coded to identify themes. Results Thirty-one HIV negative men (median age 26, IQR 23–31) were interviewed, 52% with a history of STI and 77% unemployed. While most (61%) perceived themselves to be at risk for HIV, less than half had tested for HIV in the prior 3 months (36%), the majority reported inconsistent condom use (87%), and most reported partners outside their relationship (84%). While only a quarter had previously heard of PrEP, all were interested in initiating. Four participants felt PrEP should only be for men because polygamy is acceptable. While most men wanted their partners on PrEP (77%), they also felt that their female partners initiating PrEP would signify a lack of trust in the relationship, while paradoxically acknowledging that their own multiple sexual relationships put their partner at risk. Men expressed fear of destabilizing new relationships by asking about HIV status, and admitted being less likely to discuss HIV status and condoms during sexual encounters involving alcohol. Men felt that using PrEP might lead to decreased condom use and enable their female partners to be sexually active with other men. Men were concerned that if they initiated PrEP they would be mistaken as HIV positive. Conclusion Men in heterosexual relationships in rural South Africa acknowledge engaging in high HIV risk behaviors and feel that they should have access to PrEP. They report contradictory perspectives about their female partners accessing PrEP, and are concerned about PrEP increasing HIV risk behaviors, which needs further exploration. Heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa should be targeted for combination HIV prevention services, including PrEP. Disclosures S. V. Shenoi, Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Spouse does part-time contract work, Salary.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".