Clinical exigencies, psychosocial realities: negotiating HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis beyond the cascade among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Notwithstanding the efficacy of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in clinical trials, a number of obstacles exist to achieving population-level impact among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM). However, few studies have explored the subjective experiences of GBM PrEP users and non-users in the community, outside of clinical trials. The objectives of this study were to explore GBM's experiences of considering, accessing and using (or not using) PrEP, and to understand emerging sexual health, social and community issues among GBM in the PrEP era. METHODS: From October 2015 to March 2016, we purposively sampled PrEP-naïve and PrEP-experienced GBM from community organizations and health centres in Toronto, Canada. In-depth, 45- to 90-minute semi-structured interviews explored PrEP perspectives and decision-making, access, initiation, use over time, sexual practices and psychosocial considerations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, uploaded into NVIVO, reviewed using thematic analysis and then contrasted with the PrEP cascade. RESULTS: Participants included PrEP users (n = 15) and non-users (n = 14) (mean age = 36.7 years; SD = 8.2), largely gay-identified (86.2%), cisgender male (89.7%) and white (79.3%). Themes indicate not only correspondences, but also limitations of the PrEP cascade by complicating a user/non-user binary and challenging the unilateral presupposition that HIV risk perception leads to PrEP acceptance. Findings further call into question assumptions of a linear stage progression and retention in care as a universal endpoint, instead revealing alternate trajectories of seasonal or intermittent PrEP use and, for some, an end goal of terminating PrEP. GBM's narratives also revealed potent psychological/affective experiences of untethering sex from HIV anxiety; multifaceted PrEP stigma; and challenges to sexual norms and practices that complicate existing behavioural prevention strategies and sexual and social relationships. CONCLUSIONS: An expanded PrEP cascade should consider alternate trajectories of use based on dynamic relationships and behavioural risks that may call for seasonal or intermittent use; systemic barriers in access to and sustaining PrEP; and multiple end goals including PrEP maintenance and discontinuation. Incorporating GBM's lived experiences, evolving preferences, and psychosocial and community-level challenges into PrEP implementation models, rather than a circumscribed biomedical approach, may more effectively support HIV prevention and GBM's broader sexual and psychological health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".