Issues Associated With Prescribing HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Anxiety: A Qualitative Analysis of Australian Providers' Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can alleviate anxiety about acquiring HIV, particularly for gay men and other men who have sex with men. However, research with PrEP providers has rarely examined HIV anxiety. We conducted 25 semistructured interviews in 2019-2020 with PrEP providers in New South Wales and Western Australia, and analyzed data thematically. Participants included general practitioners and sexual health nurses and doctors. Our analysis explores providers' views on providing PrEP to reduce HIV anxiety for gay men, serodiscordant couples where the partner with HIV has an undetectable viral load, and for "worried well" individuals who the providers speculated might have undisclosed risk. Although providers viewed PrEP as beneficial for many people's personal lives and relationships, they felt cautious about prescribing PrEP solely for HIV anxiety, while at the same time reporting that they prescribed PrEP if individuals insisted on it and had no medical contraindications.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".