Awareness and willingness to usepre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)among sexually active adults in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Advancement in biomedical science has led to the discovery of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) as new strategies for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).This current study was a quantitative analysis that sought to evaluate the awareness and willingness to use PrEP and PEP by sexually active adults in Ghana. Material and methods:The study respondents consisted of 365 sexually active adults in Ghana.A questionnaire was designed and administered to participants online using respondent-driven sampling (RDS) approach.A c 2 test and logistic regression were employed for the analysis.Results: The study revealed a generally low awareness of PrEP and PEP.Only 25.2% of the respondents were aware of PrEP, while 20.3% were aware of PEP.Despite the low awareness rate, majority of respondents (69.3%) were willing to use PrEP and PEP for prevention of HIV.On the other hand, 30.7% of the respondents indicated their unwillingness to use PrEP and PEP citing the fear of undesirable side effects of the medications as the main reason for their decision.Conclusions: This paper calls on policy-makers to intensify advocacy for the usefulness of PrEP and PEP.The Ghana Health Service and Ghana AIDS Commission should also ensure that PrEP and PEP services are increased and include all sexually active persons in Ghana.This will ensure a great success in mitigating HIV infections in Ghana.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".