MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987674143 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v45i11a01

Canadian results from the European Men-who-have-sex-with-men Internet survey (EMIS-2017)

2019· article· en· W2987674143 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
N Brogan, DM Paquette, NJ Lachowsky, M Blais, David J. Brennan, Trevor Hart, Barry D. Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of VictoriaOntario HIV Treatment NetworkUniversité du Québec à MontréalPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersConsumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive AgencyPublic Health AgencyEuropean CommissionOntario HIV Treatment NetworkRobert Koch InstitutKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicinePublic Health Agency of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BCStrong
KeywordsMen who have sex with menMental healthMedicineCondomDemographyAnxietyPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the international European Men-who-have-sex-with-men Internet Survey (EMIS-2017) collected data from 50 countries, including Canada for the first time. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the Canadian EMIS-2017 data to describe the sexually transmitted and other bloodborne infection (STBBI) related needs of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). METHODS: The EMIS-2017 questionnaire was an updated version of EMIS-2010. It included self-reported sociodemographic data, experience of discrimination, mental health and substance use, knowledge of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV, sexual practices and history of STBBI testing and diagnosis. Analysis was largely descriptive. RESULTS: Of the 6,059 respondents from Canada, 5,165 participants met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. The majority of participants were born in Canada (79.3%); and over half of the respondents (56.7%) were under the age of 39. In terms of discrimination related to their attraction to other men, participants reported high levels of intimidation (31.9%), verbal abuse (22.1%) and physical violence (1.5%) in the previous year. Regarding mental health, 23.9% had a moderate to severe depression/anxiety score. Almost two-thirds (64.1%) indicated substance use and one-fifth (21.5%) reported chemsex (or the use of stimulant drugs to make sex more intense or last longer). Only 8.4% of participants reported use of PrEP for HIV; however, 51.7% reported being likely to use PrEP if it was available and affordable. Sexual practices, such as condom use, varied by PrEP use with 91.3% of men using PrEP reporting condomless anal intercourse (CAI) compared with 71.5% of men not on PrEP. In terms of STBBI testing, 1.5% reported being diagnosed with hepatitis C and 9.0% reported an HIV diagnosis. Of those with an HIV diagnosis, most were on treatment (99.1%) and had an undetectable viral load (96.7%). CONCLUSION: gbMSM in Canada experienced stigma, discrimination and mental health problems; substance use was high as were high-risk sexual practices, such as CAI, among some groups of men. There was a gap between the proportion of men who were interested in PrEP and those who actually used it; and comprehensive STBBI testing was low.These findings can inform public health action and provide a baseline to examine the impact of current and new interventions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207