P417 High interest in syphilis pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis among gay, bisexual and other MSM in vancouver and toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Novel strategies for preventing bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are urgently needed. We assessed the acceptability of doxycycline-based syphilis pre- and post- exposure prophylaxis (PrEP/PEP) in a survey of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) at risk. <h3>Methods</h3> We recruited gbMSM from Toronto and Vancouver sexual health clinics during routine visits from 06/2018-08/2018. The questionnaire included demographics, sexual history/behaviours and knowledge/opinions regarding STI prevention. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and constructed separate multivariable logistic regression models for willingness to use syphilis PrEP and PEP, with number of male partners in the last six months as the primary predictor, controlling for city, self-perceived syphilis risk, prior syphilis, concern about STI acquisition, number of different STIs previously diagnosed, depression, problem drug use and previous/existing HIV PrEP/PEP use. <h3>Results</h3> Among 424 participants, 56.4%/43.6% were recruited in Toronto/Vancouver. Median (interquartile range) age was 31.0 (26.0, 39.0) years, 61.7% had completed postsecondary education and 54.4% were White. Median number of male partners in the past 6 months was 6.0 (3.0, 13.0), and 18.2% had ≥1 prior syphilis diagnosis. 60.1% and 44.1% indicated willingness to use syphilis PEP and PrEP respectively; 36.6% were unwilling to use either. Most participants were familiar with antibiotic resistance (89.0%) and agreed that syphilis rates are rising in Canada (68.2%), but only 55.4% believed they were at risk for syphilis. Agreement with the latter statement was significantly associated with willingness to use syphilis PrEP (aOR=1.6; 95%CI=1.0, 2.5), as was previous/existing HIV PrEP use (aOR=2.2;95%CI=1.1,4.3) and being “very concerned” about STI acquisition (aOR=1.9;95%CI=1.0,3.4). Odds of being willing to use syphilis PEP were higher in Toronto versus Vancouver (aOR=2.0;95%CI=1.2,3.4) and increased with the number of different STIs previously diagnosed (aOR=1.4;95%CI=1.2,1.7). <h3>Conclusion</h3> There is considerable interest in syphilis PrEP/PEP in gbMSM attending STI clinics in Toronto and Vancouver. Further research on such approaches is warranted. <h3>Disclosure</h3> No significant relationships.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".