Implementation of Client-Centered Care Coordination for HIV Prevention with Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: Activities, Personnel Costs, and Outcomes—HPTN 073
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Black men who have sex with men (MSM) experience disproportionate rates of HIV infection in the USA, despite being no more likely to engage in sexual risk behaviors than other MSM racial/ethnic groups. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to reduce risk of HIV acquisition; however, rates of PrEP use among Black MSM remain low. Clinical, psychosocial, and structural factors have been shown to impact PrEP use and adherence among Black MSM. Care coordination of HIV prevention services has the potential to improve PrEP use and adherence for Black MSM, as it has been shown to improve HIV-related care outcomes among people living with HIV. METHODS: Client-centered care coordination (C4) is a multi-level intervention designed to address clinical, psychosocial, and structural barriers to HIV prevention services for Black MSM within HPTN 073, a PrEP demonstration project among Black MSM in three cities in the USA. The current study examined the implementation process of C4, specifically investigating the activities, cost, time, and outcomes associated with the C4 intervention. RESULTS: On average, participants engaged in five care coordination encounters. The vast majority of care coordination activities were conducted by counselors, averaging 30 min per encounter. The cost of care coordination was relatively low with a mean cost of $8.70 per client encounter. CONCLUSION: Although client-centered care coordination was initially implemented in well-resourced communities with robust HIV research and service infrastructure, our findings suggest that C4 can be successfully implemented in resource constrained communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".