Prevention of sexual transmission of mpox: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ongoing multi-country mpox outbreak in previously unaffected countries is primarily affecting sexual networks of men who have sex with men. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of recommended preventive interventions. To inform WHO guidelines, a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis were conducted on mpox preventive behavioural interventions to reduce: (i) sexual acquisition; (ii) onward sexual transmission from confirmed/probable cases; and (iii) utility of asymptomatic testing. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane and WHO trial databases, grey literature and conferences were searched for English-language primary research published since 1 January 2022. A reviewer team performed screening, data extraction and bias assessment. A qualitative thematic synthesis explored views and experiences of engagement in prevention in individuals at increased risk. RESULTS: There were 16 studies: 1 on contact-tracing, 2 on sexual behaviour, and 13 on asymptomatic testing. Although MPXV was detected in varying proportions of samples (0.17%-6.5%), the testing studies provide insufficient evidence to fully evaluate this strategy. For the qualitative evidence synthesis, four studies evaluated the experiences of most affected communities. Preferences about preventive interventions were shaped by: mpox information; the diversity of sexual practices; accessibility and quality of mpox testing and care; and perceived cost to wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent the sexual transmission of mpox remains scarce. Limited qualitative evidence on values and preferences provides insight into factors influencing intervention acceptability. Given global and local inequities in access to vaccines and treatment, further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of additional interventions.
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 | 0.115 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".