Disparities in HIV/STI burden and care coverage among men and transgender persons who have sex with men in Nairobi, Kenya: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The study aimed to estimate the prevalence of, and associations, with HIV and metrics of HIV care engagement in a representative population of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and transgender persons (TP) who have sex with men (GBMSM/TP) Setting Urban districts of Nairobi, Kenya. Design Cross-sectional. Participants 608 eligible participants were identified through respondent-driven sampling over 19 waves of recruitment arising from ten seeds between May and December 2017. Inclusion criteria were: age >18 years; Nairobi residence; male sex assignment at birth or current identification as male, and recent consensual sex with male partners. Exclusion criteria were: missing or invalid recruitment coupon; repeat registration; intoxication at study visit. Primary and secondary outcome measures HIV status measured using Determine Alere HIV 1/2 and First Response HIV 1–2.0 and GeneXpert HIV-1 Qual. Self-reported metrics of HIV status awareness, antiretroviral use and objective quantification of viral suppression using GeneXpert HIV-1 VL. Results 26.4% (286/618) were HIV positive of whom 76.6% were status aware, 65.3% were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 47.4% were virally suppressed (<50 copies/mL). Participants 18–22 years were less likely to be status aware, be receiving ART or to have achieved viral suppression. Mean log viral load was 3.14 log higher in 18–22 years compared with older participants. Bacterial sexually transmitted infections were common at both urethral and rectal sites and most infections were asymptomatic by self-report (rectal 82.2%, urethral 82.3%). Conclusions Engagement in the HIV diagnosis and care cascade among GBMSM/TP in Nairobi is markedly better than in most sub-Saharan African countries, yet falls short of achievements for the general population in Kenya and for GBMSM in high income settings. Young GBMSM/TP are least well served by the current configuration of adult key population services, and programmes should identify and address the sexual, social and developmental needs of adolescent and young key populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".