Pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Côte d’Ivoire: a quantitative study of acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross sectional study was conducted in 2018 in Côte d'Ivoire to assess PrEP acceptability among men who have sex with men (MSM). Two hundred and one men were asked on their intention to use PrEP if made available. Logistic regression accounting for the sampling design was used to analyze associations between high PrEP acceptability and different independent variables including barriers and facilitators. Participants were mostly young (mean age = 25 years), educated (82% with secondary/postsecondary education) and single (95.5%). On average, 3.4 episodes of anal sex were reported monthly and 37.8% of men did not use a condom at last sex. Most MSM (72.6%) had heard of PrEP before enrollment. Overall, 35.3% reported that they would use PrEP very probably if made available. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with high PrEP acceptability were condom use at last sexual intercourse (Odds ratio (OR) = 2.51; 95%Confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.45-4.33); insertive sex as compared to versatile sex (OR = 2.56; 95%CI = 1.14-5.67); free PrEP delivery (OR = 2.45; 95%CI = 1.07-5.59), concerns about side effects (OR = 0.66; 95%CI = 0.48-0.90), and being preoccupied by the fact that post-PrEP antiretroviral therapy could be inefficient (OR = 0.25; 95%CI = 0.14-0.44). PrEP implementation among MSM in Côte d'Ivoire should be accompanied by awareness raising campaigns explaining its utility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".