Combination HIV Prevention Strategies Among Montreal Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in the PrEP Era: A Latent Class Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) became publicly available in Quebec for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) in 2013. We used baseline data from Engage, a cohort of GBM recruited by respondent-driven sampling, to examine patterns of combination HIV prevention use among Montreal GBM since PrEP became available. Latent class analysis, stratified by HIV status, was used to categorize GBM by self-reported use of biomedical and behavioural prevention strategies. Correlates of resulting classes were identified using multinomial logistic regression. Among HIV-negative/unknown GBM (n = 968), we identified four classes: low use of prevention (32%), condoms (40%), seroadaptive behaviour (21%), and biomedical (including PrEP; 7%). Those using prevention (condoms, seroadaptive behaviour, and biomedical) had a higher number of anal sex partners and were more likely to report a recent sexually transmitted infection diagnosis. GBM using biomedical prevention also had a higher level of formal education. Among GBM living with HIV (n = 200), we identified three classes: mainly antiretroviral treatment (ART) with viral suppression (53%), ART with viral suppression and condoms (19%), and ART with viral suppression and seroadaptive behaviour (18%). Again, the number of anal sex partners was higher among those using condoms and seroadaptive behaviours. Our findings show antiretroviral-based prevention, either alone or in combination with other strategies, is clearly a component of the HIV prevention landscape for GBM in Montreal. Nevertheless, PrEP uptake remains low, and there is a need to promote its availability more widely.
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".