Associations Between Methods of Meeting Sexual Partners and Sexual Practices Among Heterosexuals: Cross-sectional Study in Melbourne, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between meeting partners on the web and sexual practices has been understudied in heterosexuals. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the associations between the methods of meeting partners and sexual practices and HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in heterosexuals. METHODS: We conducted a survey among heterosexuals attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in 2019. This survey asked about the methods through which the participants engaged in meeting their sexual partners, sexual practices, and intravenous drug use (IVDU) over the past 3 months. The participants' HIV and STI (chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis) status was obtained from clinical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between each method of meeting and the participants' sexual practices, IVDU, and STI status. RESULTS: A total of 698 participants (325 men and 373 women) were included in the study. Most of the participants reported using only one method to meet partners (222/325, 68.3% men; 245/373, 65.7% women; P=.05). The men met partners most commonly at social venues (eg, bar, pub, or party; 126/325, 38.8%), whereas the women met partners most commonly through friends or family (178/373, 47.7%). Paying for sex was associated with men meeting partners at sex venues (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 145.34, 95% CI 26.13-808.51) and on the internet (AOR 10.00, 95% CI 3.61-27.55). There was no association between IVDU and methods of meeting. Social venues were associated with condomless vaginal sex among men (AOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.94-5.71) and women (AOR 2.58, 95% CI 1.61-4.13) and testing positive for STI among men (AOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.24-7.48) and women (AOR 3.75, 95% CI 1.58-8.89). CONCLUSIONS: Heterosexuals who met partners at social venues had a more than threefold risk of testing positive for STIs, indicating that heterosexuals may benefit from health promotion campaigns that are delivered through a public setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".