MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385843582 · doi:10.2196/48459

Motivational Enhancement Interventions to Increase Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Use in Sexual Minority Men Who Use Stimulants: Protocol for a Pilot Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial

2023· article· en· W4385843582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leah Davis-Ewart, Christian Grov, Rachel Verhagen, Jennifer K. Manuel, Michael Viamonte, Samantha E. Dilworth, N Odell, Omar Valentin, Sidney Carr, Emily M. Cherenack, C. Michael Henderson, Susanne Doblecki‐Lewis, Inbal Nahum‐Shani

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMotivational interviewingMedicinePsychological interventionPre-exposure prophylaxisContingency managementMedical prescriptionPopulationIntervention (counseling)Random assignmentMen who have sex with menFamily medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)NursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) could substantially mitigate HIV risk, sexual minority men who use stimulants commonly experience difficulties with engaging in PrEP clinical services. Motivational interviewing (MI) and contingency management (CM) reduce substance use and condomless anal sex (CAS) in this population, but these motivational enhancement interventions require modifications to promote engagement along the PrEP care continuum. OBJECTIVE: PrEP Readiness Interventions for Supporting Motivation (PRISM) is a pilot sequential multiple assignment randomized trial testing the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of distinct combinations of telehealth MI and CM in 70 cisgender sexual minority men who use stimulants that are not currently taking PrEP. METHODS: A national sample was recruited via social networking applications to complete a baseline assessment and mail-in HIV testing. Those with nonreactive HIV results were randomized to receive either (1) a 2-session MI intervention focusing on PrEP use (session 1) and concomitant stimulant use or CAS (session 2) or (2) a CM intervention with financial incentives for documented evidence of PrEP clinical evaluation by a medical provider (US $50) and filling a PrEP prescription (US $50). At the 3-month follow-up assessment, participants who reported they had not filled a prescription for PrEP were randomized a second time to either (1) switch to a second-stage intervention (ie, MI+CM or CM+MI) or (2) continue with assessments only. Outcomes for both responders and nonresponders were reassessed at a 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is documented evidence of filling a PrEP prescription over 6 months. Self-reported secondary outcomes include PrEP clinical evaluation by a medical provider, stimulant use, and CAS. Qualitative exit interviews were conducted with a subgroup of responders and nonresponders to characterize their experiences with the MI and CM interventions. RESULTS: Implementation of PRISM underscores challenges in reaching sexual minority men who use stimulants to optimize HIV prevention efforts. Approximately 1 in 10 (104/1060) eligible participants have enrolled. Of the 104 who enrolled, 87 (84%) completed mail-in HIV testing. We delivered 5 preliminary HIV-positive results, including posttest counseling with referrals to confirmatory testing. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from PRISM underscore the central importance of a flexible, participant-centered approach to support the engagement of sexual minority men who use stimulants. Leveraging telehealth platforms to deliver motivational enhancement interventions also expanded their reach and potential public health impact with this high-priority population. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of telehealth MI and CM for supporting PrEP use in sexual minority men who use stimulants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04205487; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04205487. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48459.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.011

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→