Preferences regarding emerging HIV prevention technologies among Toronto men who have sex with men: a discrete choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New forms of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) include long-acting injectables and topical microbicides, each with unique attributes that may appeal to distinct users. We used a discrete choice experiment to characterize preferences for new PrEP formulations among Toronto men who have sex with men. MSM undergoing anonymous HIV testing completed a discrete choice experiment with 12 choice sets by selecting their preferred option within each set. Each set included "usual methods to prevent HIV" (excluding PrEP) as one alternative and two hypothetical PrEP alternatives, which differed according formulation/dosing, side effects (none/mild), risk of drug resistance (none/low/moderate), and HIV prevention efficacy (50%, 65%, 80% or 99% risk reduction). We used mixed logistic regression to infer preferences for PrEP attributes and calculate the marginal rate of substitution between efficacy and other PrEP attributes. 306 men with median (interquartile range) age = 29 (25, 36) years participated, and reported 6 (3, 10) partners and 0 (0, 2) condomless receptive anal sex acts in the preceding six months. An on-demand pill was the most preferred formulation, followed by a monthly injection, daily pill, and on-demand rectal gel. Drug resistance was an important determinant of preferences if the risk was moderate, but not if it was low. The minimum efficacy required for an on-demand pill to be preferred over no PrEP was 32.6% (95%CI = 21.2-43.9%); for a daily pill, injections, and rectal gel, minimum efficacy was 57.9% (95%CI = 44.1-71.7%), 40.1% (27.0-53.2%), and 71.3% (60.5-82.1%), respectively. Attitudes towards PrEP formulations vary among men who have sex with men, with on-demand pills and monthly injections having the highest average preference scores. Understanding these preferences may help to predict uptake.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".