Knowledge and Acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Ghana
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ghana, men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a biomedical intervention that reduces the risk of HIV infection but is not currently available in Ghana. This paper explores knowledge and acceptability of HIV PrEP among Ghanaian MSM. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on 22 focus group discussions (N = 137) conducted between March and June 2012 in Accra, Kumasi, and Manya Krobo. Overall, participants reported low knowledge of PrEP. However, once information about PrEP was provided, there was high acceptability. The primary reason for acceptability was that PrEP provided an extra level of protection against HIV. Acceptability of PrEP was conditioned on it having minimal side effects, being affordable and efficient in preventing HIV infection. No acceptability of PrEP was attributed to limited knowledge of side effects and perceived lack of effectiveness. The reasons provided to utilize PrEP and condoms were that condoms protect against other STIs, and sexual partner factors. This is the first known study to explore PrEP knowledge and acceptability among Ghanaian MSM. It is important that key stakeholders preemptively address potential barriers to PrEP acceptability, uptake, and adherence, especially among MSM, once PrEP becomes available in Ghana.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it