MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110898807 · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-12026-7

Individual and poly-substance use and condomless sex among HIV-uninfected adults reporting heterosexual sex in a multi-site cohort

2021· review· en· W3110898807 on OpenAlexaff
Rob J. Fredericksen, Bridget M. Whitney, Elizabeth Trejo, Robin M. Nance, Emma Fitzsimmons, F. L. Altice, Adam W. Carrico, Charles M. Cleland, Carlos del Rı́o, Ann Duerr, Wafaa El‐Sadr, Shoshana Y. Kahana, Irene Kuo, Kenneth H. Mayer, Shruti H. Mehta, Lawrence J. Ouellet, Vu Minh Quan, Josiah D. Rich, David W. Seal, Sandra A. Springer, Faye S. Taxman, Wendee M. Wechsberg, Heidi M. Crane, Joseph A. Delaney

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsPublic healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)EpidemiologyCohortCohort studySubstance useDemographyMen who have sex with menEnvironmental healthFamily medicineClinical psychologyInternal medicineSyphilisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the association between substance use (SU) and condomless sex (CS) among HIV-negative adults reporting heterosexual sex in the Seek, Test, Treat, and Retain (STTR) consortium. We describe the impact of SU as well as person/partner and context-related factors on CS, identifying combinations of factors that indicate the highest likelihood of CS. METHODS: We analyzed data from four US-based STTR studies to examine the effect of SU on CS using two SU exposures: 1) recent SU (within 3 months) and 2) SU before/during sex. Behavioral data were collected via 1:1 or self-administered computerized interviews. Adjusted individual-study, multivariable relative risk regression was used to examine the relationship between CS and SU. We also examined interactions with type of sex and partner HIV status. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using traditional fixed-effects meta-analysis. We analyzed data for recent SU (n = 6781; 82% men, median age = 33 years) and SU before/during sex (n = 2915; 69% men, median age = 40 years). RESULTS: For both exposure classifications, any SU other than cannabis increased the likelihood of CS relative to non-SU (8-16%, p-values< 0.001). In the recent SU group, however, polysubstance use did not increase the likelihood of CS compared to single-substance use. Cannabis use did not increase the likelihood of CS, regardless of frequency of use. Type of sex was associated with CS; those reporting vaginal and anal sex had a higher likelihood of CS compared to vaginal sex only for both exposure classifications (18-21%, p < 0.001). Recent SU increased likelihood of CS among those reporting vaginal sex only (9-10%, p < 0.001); results were similar for those reporting vaginal and anal sex (5-8%, p < 0.01). SU before/during sex increased the likelihood of CS among those reporting vaginal sex only (20%; p < 0.001) and among those reporting vaginal and anal sex (7%; p = 0.002). Single- and poly-SU before/during sex increased the likelihood of CS for those with exclusively HIV-negative partners (7-8%, p ≤ 0.02), and for those reporting HIV-negative and HIV-status unknown partners (9-13%, p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSION: Except for cannabis, any SU increased the likelihood of CS. CS was associated with having perceived HIV-negative partners and with having had both anal/vaginal sex.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→