Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: facilitators, barriers and impact on sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Benin, men who have sex with men (MSM) do not always use condoms during anal sex. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using Truvada® (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate / emtricitabine) may be a complementary HIV prevention measure for MSM. This study aimed at identifying the potential facilitators and barriers to the use of PrEP. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in 2018 among male-born MSM aged 18 years or older who reported being HIV-negative or unaware of their HIV status. The participants were recruited by the RDS technique (respondent driven sampling) in six cities of Benin. Logistic regression analyses, adapted to RDS statistical requirements, were performed to identify the factors associated with PrEP acceptability. RESULTS: Mean age of the 400 MSM recruited was 26.2 ± 5.0 years. PrEP was known by 50.7% of respondents. The intention to use PrEP was expressed by 90% of MSM. If PrEP effectiveness were 90% or more, 87.8% of the respondents thought they would decrease condom use. In multivariate analysis, the facilitators associated with PrEP acceptability were: not having to pay for PrEP (odds ratio (OR) = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.50-4.46) and its accessibility within MSM networks (OR = 9.82, 95% CI: 3.50-27.52). Only one barrier was significant: the concern that taking PrEP be perceived as marker of adopting HIV risky behaviors (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04-0.30). CONCLUSION: In Benin, not all MSM know about PrEP. But once well informed, the majority seems willing to use it if made available. The free availability of the drug and its accessibility in the MSM networks are important facilitators. The possibility of decrease in condom use should not be a barrier to the prescription of PrEP if made available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".