MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174232178 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2021.1936440

How Has HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Changed Sex? A Review of Research in a New Era of Bio-behavioral HIV Prevention

2021· review· en· W3174232178 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Grov, Drew A. Westmoreland, Alexa B. D’Angelo, David W. Pantalone

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMen who have sex with menPre-exposure prophylaxisTransgenderHuman sexualityMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Reproductive healthAnal sexClinical psychologyPsychologyFamily medicineGerontologySyphilisPopulationEnvironmental healthGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, the U.S. FDA approved the first drug for use as HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), which is nearly 99% effective when taken as prescribed. Although the manifest function of PrEP is to prevent HIV infection in the event of exposure, the drug has also had a significant impact on various facets of sexuality. In this review, we focus on research that emerged in the near decade since PrEP's approval, with a specific focus on the ways in which different elements of sex and sexuality have been impacted by gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), cisgender women, and transgender individuals. We highlight evidence showing how PrEP has enhanced sexual self-esteem, improved sexual pleasure, reduced sexual anxiety, and has increased sexual agency for those taking it. For many, PrEP also serves as a gateway to improve routine health and increase sexual health-care utilization. Additionally, we review the question of whether PrEP is associated with increased sexual risk taking (i.e. risk compensation), and note that, although some data are mixed, PrEP is not intended as an intervention to reduce condomless anal sex or STIs: it aims to prevent HIV. Finally, our review highlights that, although the volume of research on PrEP among GBMSM is robust, it is underdeveloped for cisgender women and transgender populations and insufficient for inclusion in such a review for cisgender heterosexual men was. PrEP research with these populations is an important direction for future research. Finally, from 2012 to 2019, a single PrEP formulation and delivery method was FDA approved (oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). As additional drug formulations (ie.g., emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide) and delivery methods (e.g., microbiocides, vaginal ring, injectable) come to market, it will be important to examine how these, too, impact the spectrum of sexuality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.009
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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations70
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207