Geographical Disparities in HIV Seroprevalence Among Men Who Have Sex with Men and People Who Inject Drugs in Nigeria: Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of geographical heterogeneity of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) and people who inject drugs (PWID) can usefully inform targeted HIV prevention and care strategies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to measure HIV seroprevalence and identify hotspots of HIV infection among MSM and PWID in Nigeria. METHODS: We included all MSM and PWID accessing HIV testing services across 7 prioritized states (Lagos, Nasarawa, Akwa Ibom, Cross Rivers, Rivers, Benue, and the Federal Capital Territory) in 3 geographic regions (North Central, South South, and South West) between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017. We extracted data from national testing registers, georeferenced all HIV test results aggregated at the local government area level, and calculated HIV seroprevalence. We calculated and compared HIV seroprevalence from our study to the 2014 integrated biological and behavioural surveillance survey and used global spatial autocorrelation and hotspot analysis to highlight patterns of HIV infection and identify areas of significant clustering of HIV cases. RESULTS: MSM and PWID had HIV seroprevalence rates of 12.14% (3209/26,423) and 11.88% (1126/9474), respectively. Global spatial autocorrelation Moran I statistics revealed a clustered distribution of HIV infection among MSM and PWID with a <5% and <1% likelihood that this clustered pattern could be due to chance, respectively. Significant clusters of HIV infection (Getis-Ord-Gi* statistics) confined to the North Central and South South regions were identified among MSM and PWID. Compared to the 2014 integrated biological and behavioural surveillance survey, our results suggest an increased HIV seroprevalence among PWID and a substantial decrease among MSM. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified geographical areas to prioritize for control of HIV infection among MSM and PWID, thus demonstrating that geographical information system technology is a useful tool to inform public health planning for interventions targeting epidemic control of HIV infection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".