Conceptions of sexual health by gay men living with HIV in serodifferent couples in Montreal, Canada: results from a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other men (GBM) who have sex with men living with HIV in serodifferent couples (one partner living with HIV, the other HIV-negative) may encounter unique sexual health challenges. This study aimed to explore their definition of sexual health that could improve service provision. METHODS: We interviewed 10 gay-identified men living with HIV from 2017 to 2019 as part of CTNPT013, a study on the sexual health of HIV serodifferent GBM couples conducted at two HIV-specialised clinics in Montreal, Canada. Participants partook in semi-structured interviews on the meaning of sexual health. We performed a content analysis of interview transcripts, coding them according to the 10 dimensions of Robinson's Sexual Health Model. RESULTS: Mean age of interviewees was 35.4years (s.d.,10.2; range, 20-53). Every dimension of Robinson's model was spontaneously evoked, except for body image and spirituality. All men indicated intimacy/relationships (e.g. sexual agreements) and sexual health care/safer sex (e.g. HIV management, risk behaviours) as relevant aspects of sexual health. Other dimensions included: positive sexuality (n =7), such as pleasure and enjoyment during sex; talking about sex (n =5), which mainly concerned HIV disclosure; sexual functioning (n =4); challenges to sexual health (n =3), including substance abuse; and culture/sexual identity (n =3). Two participants (n =2) cited masturbation/fantasy. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasises the multi-faceted nature of sexual health for gay men with HIV in serodifferent couples and the pivotal roles of relationships, HIV, risk management (e.g. via health care, knowledge), and positive sexual experiences. These dimensions could be considered in sexual health promotion interventions targeting this population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".