Assessing Outcomes in HIV Prevention and Treatment Programs With Female Sex Workers and Men Who Have Sex With Men: Expanded Polling Booth Survey Protocol (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Assessing HIV outcomes in key population prevention programs is a crucial component of the program cycle, as it facilitates improved planning and monitoring of anticipated results. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS recommends using simple, rapid methods to routinely measure granular and differentiated program outcomes for key populations. Following a program science approach, Partners for Health and Development in Africa, in partnership with the Nairobi County Government and the University of Manitoba, aims to conduct an outcome assessment using a novel, expanded polling booth survey (ePBS) method with female sex workers and men who have sex with men in Nairobi County, Kenya. OBJECTIVE This study aims to (1) estimate the incidence and prevalence of HIV; (2) assess biomedical, behavioral, and structural outcomes; and (3) understand barriers contributing to gaps in access and use of available prevention and treatment services among female sex workers and men who have sex with men in Nairobi. METHODS The novel ePBS approach employs complementary data collection methods, expanding upon the traditional polling booth survey (PBS) method by incorporating additional quantitative, qualitative, and biological data collection components and an improved sampling methodology. Quantitative methods will include (1) PBS, a group interview method in which individuals provide responses through a ballot box in an unlinked and anonymous way, and (2) a behavioral and biological survey (BBS), including a face-to-face individual interview and collection of linked biological samples. Qualitative methods will include focus group discussions. The ePBS study uses a 2-stage, population- and location-based random sampling approach involving the random selection of locations from which random participants are selected at a predetermined time on a randomly selected day. PBS data will be analyzed at the group level, and BBS data will be analyzed at an individual level. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. RESULTS Data were collected from April to May 2023. The study has enrolled 759 female sex workers (response rate: 759/769, 98.6%) and 398 men who have sex with men (response rate: 398/420, 94.7%). Data cleaning and analyses are ongoing, with a focus on assessing gaps in program coverage and inequities in program outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The study will generate valuable HIV outcome data to inform program improvement and policy development for Nairobi County’s key population HIV prevention program. This study served as a pilot for the novel ePBS method, which combines PBS, BBS, and focus group discussions to enhance its programmatic utility. The ePBS method holds the potential to fill an acknowledged gap for a rapid, low-cost, and simple method to routinely measure HIV outcomes within programs and inform incremental program improvements through embedded learning processes.
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 | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.014 |
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".