Knowledge and attitudes of syphilis and syphilis pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In British Columbia, Canada, syphilis is at record-high rates, with over 80% of cases in 2017 seen in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM). The syphilis epidemic is of particular concern for those living with HIV, since syphilis may lead to more serious complications in this population. We sought to explore syphilis-related knowledge and attitudes around biomedical prevention options for syphilis, with the goal of informing effective strategies to prevent syphilis. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, individual interviews from December 2016 to June 2017. Our interviews focused on participants' knowledge about syphilis and perceptions regarding syphilis pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Interviews were analysed using Grounded Theory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five GBM were interviewed (64% white; median age: 43 years), including men living with HIV and/or with a history of syphilis. SETTING: Vancouver, British Columbia. RESULTS: Five interrelated themes emerged. First, GBM were aware of the local syphilis epidemic. Second, syphilis-related knowledge differed according to syphilis and HIV serostatus. Third, competing ideas emerged regarding men's concerns about syphilis. While our participants expressed concern about getting syphilis, they also described the importance of sexual pleasure. Fourth, many participants said that syphilis was not perceived to be alarming; preventing HIV infection remained a primary concern for many. Finally, while syphilis PrEP was appealing to those living with HIV or a prior syphilis diagnosis, others were concerned about antibiotic resistance, cost and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants organised their safer sex strategies around HIV, not syphilis. Although syphilis-related knowledge was relatively high among GBM living with HIV and those with a prior syphilis diagnosis, this knowledge did not appear to be related with safer sexual practices, such as increased condom use. This work highlights the importance of examining other potential prevention solutions, such as syphilis PrEP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".