A cross‐sectional study comparing men who have sex with men and inject drugs and people who inject drugs who are men and have sex with men in San Francisco: Implications for HIV and hepatitis C virus prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Men who have sex with men (MSM) and people who inject drugs (PWID) carry a disproportionate burden of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. We compared the demographic and risk profiles of MSM who inject drugs (MSM-IDU, i.e., men reached through affiliation with MSM) and PWID who are men and have sex with men (PWID-MSM, i.e., men reached through affiliation with PWID). Methods We used data from the most recent waves of the National HIV Behavioural Surveillance among MSM (2017) and PWID (2018) in San Francisco. Participants were recruited through venue-based (MSM) and peer-referral (PWID) sampling and completed standardised questionnaires. We compared the characteristics of MSM-IDU and PWID-MSM using bivariate tests. Results Of 504 participants completing the MSM survey, 6.2% reported past-year injection drug use (MSM-IDU). Among 311 male participants completing the PWID survey, 19.0% reported past-year sex with a male (PWID-MSM). Relative to MSM-IDU, more PWID-MSM were older, identified as bisexual, had lower income, a history of incarceration and were homeless. MSM-IDU had more male sexual partners (median: 10 vs 3) and fewer injected daily (29.0% vs 64.4%) than PWID-MSM. While more PWID-MSM sought sterile equipment from a syringe program (86.4% vs 35.5%), fewer reported using PrEP (15.0% vs 42.9%). Conclusion The sociodemographic, risk behaviour, and prevention access profiles of MSM-IDU and PWID-MSM in San Francisco suggest that they represent distinct populations who may require tailored HIV and HCV prevention strategies. MSM- and PWID-focused prevention programs should provide combined sexual health and harm reduction messages and services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".