MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089983701 · doi:10.1002/jia2.25603

Online socializing among men who have sex with men and transgender people in Nairobi and Johannesburg and implications for public health‐related research and health promotion: an analysis of qualitative and respondent‐driven sampling survey data

2020· article· en· W3089983701 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Fearon, Adam Bourne, Siyanda Tenza, Thesla Palanee‐Phillips, Rhoda Kabuti, Peter Weatherburn, Will Nutland, Joshua Kimani, Adrian D. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
FundersLa Trobe UniversityMedical Research CouncilDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentUniversity of OxfordStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsMen who have sex with menRespondentSocial mediaTransgenderMedicineContext (archaeology)Reproductive healthSexual identitySexual orientationPublic healthQualitative researchDemographyGerontologySocial psychologyHuman sexualityPsychologyGender studiesPopulationFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthSociologyGeographyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is little published literature about gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men and transgender individuals (MSM and TG)'s use of social media in sub-Saharan Africa, despite repressive social and/or criminalizing contexts that limit access to physical HIV prevention. We sought to describe MSM and TG's online socializing in Nairobi and Johannesburg, identifying the characteristics of those socializing online and those not, in order to inform the development of research and health promotion in online environments. METHODS: Respondent-driven sampling surveys were conducted in 2017 in Nairobi (n = 618) and Johannesburg (n = 301) with those reporting current male gender identity or male sex assigned at birth and sex with a man in the last 12 months. Online socializing patterns, sociodemographic, sexual behaviour and HIV-testing data were collected. We examined associations between social media use and sociodemographic characteristics and sexual behaviours among all, and only those HIV-uninfected, using logistic regression. Analyses were RDS-II weighted. Thirty qualitative interviews were conducted with MSM and TG in each city, which examined the broader context of and motivations for social media use. RESULTS: Most MSM and TG had used social media to socialize with MSM in the last month (60% Johannesburg, 71% Nairobi), mostly using generic platforms (e.g. Facebook), but also gay-specific (e.g. Grindr). HIV-uninfected MSM and TG reporting riskier recent sexual behaviours had raised odds of social media use in Nairobi, including receptive anal intercourse (adjusted OR = 2.15, p = 0.006), buying (aOR = 2.24, p = 0.015) and selling sex with men (aOR = 2.17, p = 0.004). Evidence for these associations was weaker in Johannesburg, though socializing online was associated with condomless anal intercourse (aOR = 3.67, p = 0.003) and active syphilis (aOR = 13.50, p = 0.016). Qualitative findings indicated that while online socializing can limit risk of harm inherent in face-to-face interactions, novel challenges were introduced, including context collapse and a fear of blackmail. CONCLUSIONS: Most MSM and TG in these cities socialize online regularly. Users reported HIV acquisition risk behaviours, yet this space is not fully utilized for sexual health promotion and research engagement. Effective, safe and acceptable means of using online channels to engage with MSM/TG that account for MSM and TG's strategies and concerns for managing online security should now be explored, as complements or alternatives to existing outreach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.456
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International AIDS SocietySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207