Exchanging a “Gnawing Thought for “Taking a Pill Once a Day”: Examining Sexual Minority Men's Experiences With PrEP and Mental Health in a Universal PrEP Access Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how universal access to and taking no-cost preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which effectively prevents HIV acquisition, may impact the mental health-related experiences of sexual minority men, including HIV-related anxiety. We employed community-based and participatory methods to conduct and analyze 27 interviews with sexual minority men in British Columbia, Canada. Before starting PrEP, participants' experiences with sex were highly associated with HIV-related anxiety. Participants stated they did not explicitly initiate PrEP to reduce HIV-related anxiety, yet many described significant reductions of HIV-related anxiety after starting PrEP. Participants described feeling that the sex they were having was safer following their initiation of PrEP, which resulted in increased ability to access heightened experiences of pleasure, desire, and intimacy. PrEP's capacity to impact HIV stigma and health broadly should continue to be explored, particularly given the mental health inequities faced by those who may acquire HIV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".