MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384560274 · doi:10.2196/46489

Evaluation of Mpox Knowledge, Stigma, and Willingness to Vaccinate for Mpox: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Among Sexual and Gender Minorities

2023· article· en· W4384560274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thiago S. Torres, Mayara Secco Torres Silva, Carolina Coutinho, Brenda Hoagland, Emília M. Jalil, Sandra Wagner Cardoso, Júlio Moreira, Mônica Avelar Figueiredo Mafra Magalhães, Paula M. Luz, Valdiléa G. Veloso, Beatriz Grinsztejn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPublic healthMedicineDemographyStigma (botany)Social stigmaFamily medicineGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 2022 multicountry mpox outbreak positioned the condition as a public health emergency of international concern. By May 2023, Brazil ranked second globally in the cumulative number of mpox cases and deaths. The higher incidence of mpox among gay and other men who have sex with men in the current mpox outbreak deepens the stigma and discrimination against sexual and gender minorities (SGM). This might worsen the structural barriers impacting access to health services, which ultimately leads to undertesting and underreporting of cases. There are no data available on mpox knowledge and stigma in Latin America. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate mpox knowledge, stigma, and willingness to vaccinate for mpox among SGM, and to describe sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics according to self-reported mpox diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey was conducted in a convenience sample of adults (aged >18 years) living in Brazil recruited through advertisements on dating apps, social media, referral institutions for infectious diseases websites, and mass media (October-November 2022). We compared participants' characteristics according to self-reported mpox diagnosis using chi-square test or Fisher exact test for qualitative variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for quantitative variables. RESULTS: We enrolled 6236 participants: 5685 (91.2%) were cisgender men; 6032 (96.7%) were gay, bisexual, or pansexual; 3877 (62.2%) were White; 4902 (78.7%) had tertiary education; and 4070 (65.2%) reported low or middle income. Most participants (n=5258, 84.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that "LGBTQIA+ individuals are being discriminated and stigmatized due to mpox." Mpox awareness was 96.9% (n=6044), and 5008 (95.1%) were willing to get vaccinated for mpox. Overall, 324 (5.2%) reported an mpox diagnosis. Among these, 318 (98.1%) reported lesions, 178 (56%) local pain, and 316 (99.4%) sought health care. Among participants not reporting a diagnosis, 288 (4.9%) had a suspicious lesion, but only 158 (54.9%) of these had sought health care. Compared to participants with no diagnosis, those reporting an mpox diagnosis were younger (P<.001), reported more sex partners (P<.001), and changes in sexual behavior after mpox onset (P=.002). Moreover, participants diagnosed with mpox reported more frequently being tested for HIV in the prior 3 months (P<.001), living with HIV (P<.001), currently using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (P<.001), and previous sexually transmitted infection diagnosis (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results point to high mpox knowledge and willingness to vaccinate among SGM in Brazil. Participants self-reporting mpox diagnosis more frequently reported to be living with HIV, STI diagnosis, and current pre-exposure prophylaxis use, highlighting the importance of an mpox assessment that includes comprehensive sexual health screenings. Efforts to decrease stigma related to mpox among SGM are necessary to avoid mpox underdiagnosis.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations51
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207