Would the Siblings of Latinx Men Who Have Sex With Men Encourage Their Brothers to Use PrEP? Findings From a Feasibility and Acceptability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored whether siblings can be engaged in PrEP promotion. We used the Information-Motivation-Behavior model to develop and conduct surveys and dyadic interviews with Latino men who have sex with men (LMSM) and their siblings (n = 31) and three sibling-only focus groups (n = 20). For LMSM, only n = 14 (45%) agreed they would benefit from taking PrEP, yet n = 22 (71%) would take PrEP to make their sibling worry less about them, and n = 23 (74%) requested a PrEP referral. For siblings, n = 20 (65%) believed PrEP would benefit their brother, and n = 19 (95%) in the focus groups said they would take PrEP to help their brother get started. Qualitative results include (1) siblings’ support for PrEP use, (2) explicit conversations about sex were not necessary for discussing sexual health, and (3) siblings wanted to understand what they could do to encourage their brother to consider PrEP. We conclude siblings can be engaged in PrEP promotion.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".