Identifying Key Factors to PrEP Initiation and Persistence Among YMSM Through Focus Groups and Surveys in Two High-Priority Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cisgender men are diagnosed with HIV at a rate four times greater than cisgender women, with 71% of infections attributed to male-male sexual contact. Despite expanding accessibility, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention is initiated by only 30% of people with PrEP indications. Five focus groups with 42 young men who have sex with men from New York and Alabama were conducted to identify key factors to PrEP initiation and persistence. Thirty focus group participants completed a survey on demographics, PrEP choices and health care attitudes. Findings suggest provider competency significantly influences PrEP use due to stigmatization in medical settings. Participants noted benefits of PrEP including HIV protection and sexual empowerment, yet barriers like cost and side effects were prevalent. Our findings outline barriers and facilitators to PrEP use among young men who have sex with men in two high priority settings that will inform PrEP care updates in participating clinics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".