MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205399537 · doi:10.2196/32156

Sexual Partner Referral for HIV Testing Through Social Networking Platforms: Cross-sectional Study

2021· article· en· W4205399537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piao‐Yi Chiou, Chien‐Ching Hung, Chien‐Yu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsMen who have sex with menRespondentReferralReproductive healthSexual partnerPsychologyMedicineFamily medicinePartner notificationClinical psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationEnvironmental healthGonorrhea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) who undergo voluntary HIV counseling and testing (VCT) often report condomless anal sexual intercourse, having many sexual partners, and being exposed to risky sexual networks. Limited research has discussed the application of motivational interviewing and convenience referral platforms to facilitate the referral of sexual partners for HIV testing among MSM. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of VCT referral by sexual partners through social networking platforms and the test results after elicited interviews with MSM; compare the characteristics and risk behaviors among MSM tested without referral, index subjects, and referred sexual partners; and explore unknown sexual affiliations through visualizing and quantifying the social network graph. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit index subjects from a community HIV screening station frequented by MSM in Taipei City on Friday and Saturday nights. Respondent-driven sampling was used to recruit sexual partners. Partner-elicited interviews were conducted by trained staff before VCT to motivate MSM to become index subjects and refer sexual partners via the Line app, or to disclose the accounts and profiles of sexual partners on relevant social networking platforms. Referred sexual partners received rapid HIV testing, and the recruitment process was repeated until leads were exhausted. RESULTS: =6.1, P=.047) compared with MSM tested without referrals. The new HIV-seropositivity rate among tested sexual partners was 2.4%, which was higher than the rate in the other 2 groups. The social network analysis revealed the following 4 types of sexual affiliation: chain, Y, star, and complicated. Among the HIV-negative sexual partners, 26.9% (43/160) had sexual affiliations with HIV-positive nodes, and 40% (10/25) were untested sexual partners with a direct sexual affiliation with an HIV-positive node. Four transmission bridges were found in the network graph. CONCLUSIONS: Partner-elicited interviews can effectively promote referral for HIV testing and case identification via Line, and can clarify unknown sexual affiliations of MSM to facilitate the development of a tailored prevention program. Social network analysis is needed for an insightful understanding of the different network structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→