Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination across a cascade of knowledge, willingness, and uptake among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Canada's three largest cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some Canadian jurisdictions offer publicly funded HPV vaccine to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) aged ≤26 years. We characterized factors associated with being in different stages of HPV vaccination. Methods: Engage is a sexual health study of GBM in the three largest Canadian cities recruited via respondent driven sampling (RDS). We categorized participants as: (1) unaware of HPV vaccine, (2) undecided/unwilling to get vaccinated, (3) willing to get vaccinated, (4) vaccinated with one or more doses. Our RDS-II weighted analyses used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with being in earlier stages of the cascade compared to Stage 4. Results: Across the cities, 26–40%, 7–14%, 33–39%, and 13–28% were in Stages 1 to 4, respectively. Compared to Stage 4, being in earlier stages of the cascade was associated with bisexual-identification (Stage 1: adjusted odds ratio[aOR] = 2.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] = 1.06–7.62; Stage 2: aOR = 3.09, 95%CI = 1.19–8.05), having immigrated to Canada (Stage 1: aOR = 1.79, 95%CI 1.07–2.99), preference to keep same-sex romantic relationships private (Stage 1: aOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.05–1.48; Stage 2: aOR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.05–1.46), not receiving sexual health information (Stage 1: aOR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.13–0.71; Stage 2: aOR = 0.27, 95%CI = 0.12–0.64), not accessing a health-care provider (Stage 2: aOR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.15–0.83), and no past hepatitis A/B vaccination (Stage 1: aOR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.09–0.30; Stage 2: aOR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.09–0.35; Stage 3: aOR = 0.38, 95%CI = 0.21–0.61). Discussion: Interventions are needed to reduce social and financial barriers, increase sexual health knowledge, and improve GBM-competent health-care access to increase vaccine uptake among GBM.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".