Interest In and Uptake of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): A Cross-Sectional Study of High-Risk Patients in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective, evidence-based HIV prevention strategy. However, its use in the city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan province of western Canada, is relatively new. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the interest and uptake of PrEP and investigate factors associated with HIV PrEP by high-risk patients. Methods A cross-sectional, self-administered survey of patients attending Saskatoon's Public Health Services Sexual Health Clinic was conducted from October until December 2018. The primary outcome was the interest in taking PrEP to reduce the risk of HIV infection. This outcome was evaluated for its association with potential correlates, which included: sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk perception, prior PrEP awareness, and sexual behaviors/lifestyles. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were used to pursue our research objectives. Results One hundred forty-one participants were recruited from a sexual health clinic in Saskatoon. The median age (interquartile range) was 26 (22-31) years. The median number of partners (interquartile range) was 3 (2-4) partners. A total of 66.0% of participants were unaware of PrEP, and almost half ( 49.6%) indicated an interest in taking PrEP. Among those disinterested in PrEP, 49.3% perceived minimal HIV risk, 35.2% expressed concern regarding side effects, 28.1% cited the added need for condom use, 23.9% indicated incomplete effectiveness, and 22.5% did not wish to undergo regular bloodwork. Multivariate analysis showed that interested patients were more likely to have been previously aware of PrEP (OR: 2.6, p-value = 0.03), perceived themselves to be vulnerable to HIV (OR: 15.7, p = <0.0001), or were unsure about their risk (OR: 3.9, p = 0.001). Conclusion This study suggests that a lack of knowledge regarding personal HIV risk and PrEP as a preventive option may influence PrEP interest. There lies a need for more health promotion campaigns around the health benefits of PrEP, including literacy efforts on HIV risk, concerns around side effects, and associated blood work with PrEP use.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".