MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922698020 · doi:10.2196/11285

Kuantim mi tu (“Count me too”): Using Multiple Methods to Estimate the Number of Female Sex Workers, Men Who Have Sex With Men, and Transgender Women in Papua New Guinea in 2016 and 2017

2018· article· en· W2922698020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Damian Weikum, Angela Kelly‐Hanku, Parker Hou, Martha Kupul, Angelyne Amos-Kuma, Steven G. Badman, Nick Dala, Kelsey C. Coy, John Kaldor, Andrew Vallely, Avi J. Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMen who have sex with menDemographyAnal sexTransgender womenTransgenderPopulationFemale sexMedicineNew guineaGynecologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineSociologySyphilisGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Female sex workers (FSW), men who have sex with men (MSM), and transgender women (TGW) are at high risk of acquiring HIV in many settings, such as Papua New Guinea (PNG). An understanding of the approximate size of these populations can inform resource allocation for HIV services for FSW, MSM, and TGW. OBJECTIVE: An objective of this multi-site survey was to conduct updated population size estimations (PSE) of FSW and MSM/TGW. METHODS: Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) biobehavioral surveys of FSW and MSM/TGW were conducted in 3 major cities-(1) Port Moresby, (2) Lae, and (3) Mount Hagen-between June 2016 and December 2017. Eligibility criteria for FSW included: (1) ≥12 years of age, (2) born female, (3) could speak English or Tok Pisin (PNG Pidgin), and (4) had sold or exchanged sex with a man in the past six months. Eligibility for MSM/TGW included: (1) ≥12 years of age, (2) born male, (3) could speak English, or Tok Pisin, and (4) had engaged in oral or anal sex with another person born male in the past six months. PSE methods included unique object multiplier, service multiplier, and successive sampling-population size estimation (SS-PSE) using imputed visibility. Weighted data analyses were conducted using RDS-Analyst and Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Sample sizes for FSW and MSM/TGW in Port Moresby, Lae, and Mount Hagen included: (1) 673 and 400, (2) 709 and 352, and (3) 709 and 111 respectively. Keychains were used for the unique object multiplier method and were distributed 1 week before the start of each RDS survey. HIV service testing data were only available in Port Moresby and Mount Hagen and SS-PSE estimates were calculated for all cities. Due to limited service provider data and uncertain prior size estimation knowledge, unique object multiplier weighted estimations were chosen for estimates. In Port Moresby, we estimate that there are 16,053 (95% CI 8232-23,874) FSW and 7487 (95% CI 3975-11,000) MSM/TGW, approximately 9.5% and 3.8% of the female and male populations respectively. In Lae, we estimate that there are 6105 (95% CI 4459-7752) FSW and 4669 (95% CI 3068-6271) MSM/TGW, approximately 14.4% and 10.1% of the female and male populations respectively. In Mount Hagen, we estimate that there are 2646 (95% CI 1655-3638) FSW and 1095 (95% CI 913-1151) MSM/TGW using service multiplier and successive sampling, respectively. This is approximately 17.1% and 6.3% of the female and male populations respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As the HIV epidemic in PNG rapidly evolves among key populations, PSE should be repeated to produce current estimates for timely comparison and future trend analysis.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207