Prevention challenges with current perceptions of HIV burden among HIV‐negative and never‐tested men who have sex with men in the Netherlands: a mixed‐methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As biomedical advances improved HIV treatment, the perceptions of severity and anticipated consequences of HIV could have changed accordingly. This study investigates the current perceptions of severity and anticipated consequences of HIV infection and its association with sexual risk behaviour among HIV-negative and never-tested men who have sex with men (MSM) living in the Netherlands. METHODS: In-depth interviews with recently diagnosed HIV-positive MSM were used to develop a questionnaire measuring the perceived severity and anticipated consequences of HIV infection. The questionnaire was distributed online between April and July 2019. A structural equation model was constructed to explore the anticipated consequences contributing to the perceived HIV severity and to assess the association between the perceived severity and sexual risk behaviour. RESULTS: In total, 1,072 HIV-negative and never-tested MSM completed the questionnaire, of whom 28% reported recent sexual risk behaviour. Almost one-quarter of participants (23%) had a low perceived HIV severity, which was associated with more prevalent sexual risk taking (β = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.12/-0.01). In this model, the perceived severity of HIV was more strongly associated with anticipated psychological consequences of HIV (β = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.44) and to a lesser extent with anticipated negative consequences of HIV on sex/relationships (β = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.38) and disclosure-related consequences (β = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.26). Health-related consequences of HIV were not significantly associated with the severity perceptions (β = 0.06, 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Anticipated negative social and psychological consequences of HIV mostly contribute to high HIV-severity perceptions in MSM. A smaller subgroup of MSM does not perceive HIV as a serious disease, which is associated with increased sexual risk taking. Efforts to normalize living with HIV are essential but might present a challenge for HIV prevention as it could, for a minority of MSM, decrease the motivation to prevent 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".