Exploring and Predicting HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Adherence Patterns Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Randomized Controlled Longitudinal Study of an mHealth Intervention in Western China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective strategy to reduce the risk of HIV infection. However, the efficacy of PrEP is highly dependent on adherence. Meanwhile, adherence changes over time, making it difficult to manage effectively. Objective: Our study aimed to explore and predict the patterns of change in PrEP adherence among men who have sex with men (MSM) and evaluate the impact of the WeChat-based reminder intervention on adherence, thus providing more information for PrEP implementation strategies. Methods: From November 2019 to June 2023, in a randomized controlled longitudinal study of the PrEP demonstration project in Western China (Chongqing, Sichuan, and Xinjiang) based on a mobile health (mHealth) reminder intervention, participants were randomly divided into reminder and no-reminder groups, with those in the reminder group receiving daily reminders based on the WeChat app. Participants were followed up and self-reported their medication adherence every 12 weeks for a total of 5 follow-up visits. We used the growth mixture model (GMM) to explore potential categories and longitudinal trajectories of adherence among MSM, and patterns of change in PrEP adherence were predicted and evaluated based on the decision tree. Results: A total of 446 MSM were included in the analysis. The GMM identified 3 trajectories of adherence: intermediate adherence group (n=34, 7.62%), low adherence ascending group (n=126, 28.25%), and high adherence decline group (n=286, 64.13%). We included 8 variables that were significant in the univariate analysis in the decision tree prediction model. We found 4 factors and 8 prediction rules, and the results showed that HIV knowledge score, education attainment, mHealth intervention, and HIV testing were key nodes in the patterns of change in adherence. After 10-fold cross-validation, the final prediction model had an accuracy of 75%, and the classification accuracy of low and intermediate adherence was 78.12%. Conclusions: The WeChat-based reminder intervention was beneficial for adherence. A short set of questions and prediction rules, which can be applied in future large-scale validation studies, aimed at developing and validating a short adherence assessment tool and implementing it in PrEP practices among MSM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".