Factors Contributing Toward Men’s Engagement With HIV Services: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within low- and middle-income countries, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) falls among the main causes of adult morbidity and mortality. In order to achieve epidemic control, targeted testing with the aim of identifying those unaware of their infection with HIV remains the first step in a series of efforts that include constant extension of HIV treatment programs, as well as other prevention interventions. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a new intervention that is capable of increasing the uptake of HIV-testing services (HTS) within traditionally hard-to-reach populations, such as men. We sought to review the literature on factors contributing to male aversion of HTS, health education for men and their engagement in health services, and the rate of HIVST acceptability among men. We reveal poor health-seeking behavior as the underlying factor contributing to poor uptake of HTS by men. Furthermore, our review reveals that health education programs have been recommended to address poor health-seeking behavior and improve HTS uptake among men. Studies reported high acceptability of HIVST among men. We conclude by proposing a framework to help improve men’s engagement in health services in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".