MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023351859 · doi:10.1136/sextrans-2019-sti.433

P322 A brief clinic-based peer-to-peer education intervention to improve prevention practices among sexual minority males

2019· article· en· W3023351859 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathan J. Lachowsky, Karyn Fulcher, Allan Lal, Richard A. Crosby

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer educationIntervention (counseling)Peer-to-peerPsychologyPeer reviewPeer groupMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychologyHealth educationNursingWorld Wide WebPolitical sciencePublic healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are disproportionately affected by STIs and HIV. Originally efficacious with young Black GBM, Focus on the Future (FoF) is a clinic-based, single session intervention aimed at improving prevention practices. We examined the efficacy of the program when adapted for Vancouver’s ethnoracially diverse GBM communities. <h3>Methods</h3> Participants were recruited from a GBM sexual health clinic and completed a one-time 60-minute education session with a peer health educator. This included condom and lubricant information and condom application skills practice. Between 09/2018–02/2019, each participant completed a baseline survey prior to intervention and again three months later, which were compared using paired t-tests. <h3>Results</h3> A total of24 HIV-negative participants received the intervention: average age was 27.8 years (SD=3.53) and 52% identified as non-white. The intervention was highly acceptable: 87% liked it and 91% would recommend it to others. At 3-month follow-up, participants agreed the intervention increased: knowledge about using lubricants with condoms (83%), condom use skills (78%), and condom use confidence (70%). At baseline, few participants used daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP, 17%); post-intervention, 6 PrEP-naïve participants reported initiating PrEP (32%). Overall, condom use frequency during anal sex with male partners did not change (51% baseline versus 58% post-intervention, p=0.41). However, among non-PrEP users, condom use frequency significantly increased during receptive anal sex (61% baseline versus 78% post-intervention, p=0.04) and marginally increased during insertive anal sex (24% baseline versus 48% post-intervention, p=0.11). <h3>Conclusion</h3> The adapted FOF intervention was highly acceptable to ethnoracially diverse GBM in Vancouver. A third of participants initiated PrEP within 90 days. Among participants not using PrEP, the intervention effectively increased condom use during receptive anal sex, when HIV acquisition is most likely. This low-cost intervention demonstrates promise for increasing prevention practices among GBM attending STI clinics in Vancouver. <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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207