Evolving the gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men time‐based deferral to sexual risk screening for all donors: The contribution of Canadian research programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Canada, the time deferral for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to donate blood has gradually decreased. In September 2022, this deferral was replaced with sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. We investigate how data from targeted research programmes addressed knowledge gaps to support this change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review describing the Canadian literature available before the research programmes relating to (1) behavioural indicators of HIV risk and (2) attitudes to blood donation among gbMSM, current donors and the general population. We summarize the targeted research programmes, their outputs and impact to date. RESULTS: For question 1, five projects met inclusion criteria. For question 2, three articles met inclusion criteria. Knowledge gaps identified were insufficient evidence of HIV incidence in gbMSM who met other donor eligibility criteria and scant data on opinions and views of blood donation and screening criteria for sexual risk behaviours. The research programmes funded 19 projects at 11 different research sites involving over 100 individual researchers/collaborators resulting in 19 peer-reviewed publications to date. Leveraging existing gbMSM cohorts yielded relevant HIV incidence data to inform safety modelling studies. Findings indicated that sexual behaviour-based screening was acceptable to gbMSM and donors, and donor discomfort around specific questions could be mitigated with clear explanations. CONCLUSION: Targeted research programmes filled critical knowledge gaps and informed a change to gender-neutral, sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. Findings supported successful implementation of these changes with research-informed staff training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".