MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303419185 · doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14279-2

Perceived influence of alcohol consumption, substance use, and mental health on PrEP adherence and condom use among PrEP-prescribed gay, bisexual, and other men-who-have-sex-with-men: a qualitative investigation

2022· article· en· W4303419185 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul A. Shuper, Thepikaa Varatharajan, David J. Kinitz, Dionne Gesink, Narges Joharchi, Isaac I. Bogoch, Mona Loutfy, Jürgen Rehm

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMaple Leaf Medical ClinicWomen's College HospitalCanada Research ChairsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooPublic Health OntarioCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsMedicineMen who have sex with menPre-exposure prophylaxisFocus groupMental healthCondomPopulationQualitative researchPublic healthContext (archaeology)BiostatisticsFamily medicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)NursingSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other men-who-have-sex-with-men (GBMSM) continue to be disproportionately affected by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Although HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) offers an effective means of reducing incident HIV among this population, the HIV-preventive success of oral-based PrEP is contingent upon regimen adherence. Elevated rates of alcohol-, substance use-, and mental health-related issues among GBMSM potentially hinder PrEP-taking efforts, however the evidence for this remains mixed. Accordingly, the present study entailed a comprehensive qualitative investigation to explore PrEP-prescribed GBMSM's perceptions surrounding the influence of alcohol, substance use, and mental health on PrEP adherence. METHODS: PrEP-prescribed GBMSM (age ≥ 18 years; prescribed PrEP for ≥ 3 months) were recruited from two PrEP-delivery clinics in Toronto, Canada for focus groups as part of the formative phase of an alcohol-, substance use-, and mental health-focused randomized controlled intervention trial. Focus group discussions qualitatively explored perceived strengths and barriers associated with adherence to PrEP treatment; with an emphasis on alcohol, substance use, and mental health concerns. Condom use among PrEP-prescribed GBMSM within the context of these concerns was also discussed. RESULTS: A total of five focus groups involving 35 GBMSM were conducted (4-10/group; mean age = 42.4; white = 71.4%). Although participants themselves generally reported successfully adhering to their PrEP regimens-resulting from a strong, underlying motivation for self-care-they recognized the detrimental impact that alcohol, substance use, and mental health had on adherence among their peers. In this regard, alcohol and substances were perceived as detracting from adherence only when consumption was excessive or temporally linked to PrEP dosing. Pronounced mental health issues (e.g., severe depression) were also seen as hindering adherence, although these effects were nuanced and perceived as person-dependent. Alcohol and substances were linked to condomless sex, regardless of PrEP use, and PrEP was therefore viewed as an HIV-protective 'safety net.' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings suggest that PrEP adherence can often be successfully achieved in the presence of alcohol-, substance use-, and mental health-related issues. Augmenting self-care, and addressing pronounced addictions- and mental health-related concerns, may enhance PrEP treatment among GBMSM.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207