Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescents’ Preferences for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Social Marketing Campaigns: Qualitative Preimplementation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) adolescents in the United States are disproportionately affected by HIV. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective biomedical HIV prevention method, but its awareness and uptake among SGM adolescents are low. There are no adolescent-centered PrEP social marketing campaigns in the United States that have the potential to increase awareness and interest in PrEP. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap, this qualitative study aims to examine SGM adolescents' needs and preferences regarding adolescent-centered PrEP social marketing campaigns. METHODS: SGM adolescents from Chicago and its surrounding areas participated in web-based asynchronous focus groups from February to May 2021. Questions elicited their preferences for content, design, and delivery of SGM adolescent-centered PrEP campaigns. We used rapid qualitative data analysis and organized the findings around key components of social marketing, known as the 4 Ps: product, price, place, and promotion. RESULTS: Participants (N=56) were aged 14 to 19 years (mean 18.16, SD 1.22 y), and 64% (36/56) of them identified as a racial or ethnic minority. Among the 56 participants, 70% (n=39) were aware of PrEP; however, 95% (n=53) did not know that PrEP could be prescribed to those aged under 18 years. Adolescents expressed a need for PrEP campaign messaging that provides simple, accurate, and easily accessible information (eg, what is PrEP, for whom PrEP is indicated, and where and how to access PrEP). For product and price, SGM adolescents wanted a campaign to address barriers to, costs of, and how to access PrEP and desired to know about other adolescents' PrEP experiences to improve campaign relatability. For place and promotion, participants preferred digital campaigns on social media to reduce the possibility of embarrassment and stigma and increase the accessibility of health content. CONCLUSIONS: These findings lay the groundwork for designing adolescent-centered educational PrEP campaigns that prioritize both user preferences in PrEP marketing design and strategies to overcome common barriers to PrEP awareness.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".