MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111846126 · doi:10.2196/17173

Use of Geosocial Networking Apps and HIV Risk Behavior Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Case-Crossover Study

2020· article· en· W3111846126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Justin Knox, Yi-No Chen, Qinying He, Guowu Liu, Jeb Jones, Xiaodong Wang, Patrick S. Sullivan, Aaron J. Siegler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthEmory UniversityNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCenter for AIDS Research, University of Washington
KeywordsMen who have sex with menDemographyAnal sexEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionMedicinePsychologySyphilisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) in China. The HIV epidemic is largely driven by unprotected anal sex (ie, sex not protected by condoms or HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP]). The possible association between unprotected anal sex and the use of geospatial networking apps has been the subject of scientific debate. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed whether users of a gay geospatial networking app in China were more likely to use condoms when they met their partners online versus offline. A case-crossover analysis, with each person serving as his own control, was employed to address the potential bias that men looking for sex partners through an online dating medium might have inherently different (and riskier) patterns of sexual behavior than men who do not use online dating media. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered in 2018 to adult male users of Blued-a gay geospatial networking app-in Beijing, Tianjin, Sichuan, and Yunnan, China. A case-crossover analysis was conducted among 1311 MSM not taking PrEP who reported engaging in both unprotected and protected anal sex in the previous 6 months. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to quantify the association between where the partnership was initiated (offline or online) and the act of unprotected anal sex, controlling for other interval-level covariates. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess other potential sources of bias. RESULTS: We identified 1311 matched instances where a person reported having both an unprotected anal sex act and a protected anal sex act in the previous 6 months. Of the most recent unprotected anal sex acts, 22.3% (292/1311), were initiated offline. Of the most recent protected anal sex acts, 16.3% (214/1311), were initiated offline. In multivariable analyses, initiating a partnership offline was positively associated with unprotected anal sex (odds ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.85, P<.001) compared with initiating a partnership online. These results were robust to each of the different sensitivity analyses we conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Among Blued users in 4 Chinese cities, men were less likely to have unprotected anal sex in partnerships that they initiated online compared with those that they initiated offline. The relationship was strong, with over 2.5 times the likelihood of engaging in unprotected anal sex in partnerships initiated offline compared with those initiated online. These findings suggest that geospatial networking apps are a proxy for, and not a cause of, high-risk behaviors for HIV infection; these platforms should be viewed as a useful venue to identify individuals at risk for HIV transmission to allow for targeted service provision.

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)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207