Attitudes of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (GBM) toward Their Use of Amphetamine-Type Stimulants and Relation to Reducing Use in Three Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We explored attitudes of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) toward their amphetamine-use and associations with reduced use over time. METHODS: We recruited sexually-active GBM aged 16+ years in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, Canada, from 02-2017 to 08-2019, with follow-up visits every 6-12 months until November 2020. Among participants who reported past-six-month (P6M) amphetamine-use at enrollment, we used logistic regression to identify demographic, psychological, social, mental health, other substance-use, and behavioral factors associated with reporting needing help reducing their substance-use. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to model reduced P6M amphetamine-use with perceived problematic-use as our primary explanatory variable. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,449 GBM across sites. 15.5-24.7% reported P6M amphetamine-use at enrollment and 82.6 - 85.7% reported needing no help or only a little help in reducing their substance use. Reporting needing a lot/of help or completely needing help in reducing substance-use was associated with group sex participation (AOR = 2.35, 95%CI:1.25-4.44), greater anxiety symptomatology (AOR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.16-3.83), greater financial strain (AOR = 1.35, 95%CI:1.21-1.50), and greater Escape Motive scores (AOR = 1.07, 95%CI:1.03-1.10). Reductions in P6M amphetamine-use were less likely among GBM who perceived their amphetamine-use as problematic (AOR = 0.17 95% CI 0.10 - 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Most amphetamine-using GBM did not feel they needed help reducing their substance use, and many reported reduced amphetamine-use at subsequent visits. Those who perceived their use as problematic were less likely to reduce their use. Further interventions to assist GBM in reducing their use are needed to assist those who perceive their use as problematic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".