MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903849577 · doi:10.1521/aeap.2018.30.6.490

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Awareness and Acceptability Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Taiwan

2018· article· en· W2903849577 on OpenAlexaff
Deng-Min Chuang, Peter A. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Education and Prevention · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMen who have sex with menPre-exposure prophylaxisMedicinePsychological interventionHomosexualityDemographyCross-sectional studyFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GerontologyGynecologyPsychologySyphilisPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gay and other men who have sex with men (MSM) account for the vast majority of new HIV infections in Taiwan, yet utilization of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains low. We examined correlates of PrEP awareness and acceptability among MSM in Taiwan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 176 MSM (mean age = 27.4 years) recruited through community-based organizations in two cities. Less than half of participants (47.2%) were aware of PrEP; however, when it was described to them, the majority (72.2%) indicated PrEP acceptability. In multivariable analyses, condomless anal sex was negatively associated with PrEP awareness, and higher levels of vicarious stigma and anticipated PrEP disclosure to sexual partners were positively associated with PrEP acceptability. Our findings indicate the need for targeted interventions to increase PrEP awareness among MSM engaged in high-risk behaviors and implementation strategies that address sociocultural factors to accelerate PrEP utilization among MSM in Taiwan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Education and PreventionSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207