MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281725309 · doi:10.2196/35056

Online Partner Seeking and Sexual Behaviors Among Men Who Have Sex With Men From Small and Midsized Towns: Cross-sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4281725309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vira Pravosud, April Ballard, Ian W. Holloway, April M. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Drug AbuseCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonCalifornia HIV/AIDS Research ProgramNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of California, Los AngelesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMen who have sex with menDemographyAnal intercourseSexual partnerLogistic regressionSex partnersPsychologyOdds ratioMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GonorrheaFamily medicineCondomSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) residing outside of large urban areas are underrepresented in research on online partner seeking and sexual behaviors related to transmission of HIV. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine associations between the use of the internet or social networking apps (online tools) to meet partners for sex, dating, or for both purposes (online partner seeking) and sexual behaviors among MSM residing in small and midsized towns in Kentucky, United States. METHODS: Using peer-referral sampling and online self-administered questionnaires, data were collected from 252 men, aged 18 to 34 years, who had recently (past 6 months) engaged in anal sex with another man and resided in Central Kentucky. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we assessed associations of online partner seeking and HIV-related sexual behaviors. RESULTS: Most (181/252, 71.8%) of the participants reported using online tools for partner seeking. Of these 181 respondents, 166 (91.7%) had used online tools to meet partners for sex (n=45, 27.1% for sex only; and n=121, 72.9% for sex and dating) and 136 (75.1%) had used online tools to meet partners for dating (n=15, 11% for dating only; and n=121, 89% for sex and dating). Adjusted analyses revealed that MSM who had engaged in condomless insertive and receptive anal intercourse were less likely to report online partner seeking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.68; P=.009 and aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.66; P=.005, respectively). Increased number of insertive and receptive anal sex partners and substance use before or during sex were associated with higher odds of online partner seeking (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55; P=.001; aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.39; P=.008; and aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.41-4.44; P=.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among MSM who reside outside of large urban areas and practice online partner seeking, HIV risk-reduction interventions should address safer sex practices, including the risks for HIV transmission associated with alcohol or drug use before or during sex. MSM who do not practice online partner seeking are in need of continued outreach to reduce condomless anal sex.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207