MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405987037 · doi:10.1111/asap.12448

Disparities in healthcare, STI testing, and PrEP access among newcomer sexual minority men in Canada's three largest urban centers

2025· article· en· W4405987037 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paolo Aldrin Palma, Shayna Skakoon‐Sparling, Jessie Dawson, Reza Zandi, Terri Zhang, Evan Campbell, Darrell H. S. Tan, Nathan J. Lachowsky, Joseph Cox, Gilles Lambert, Milada Dvořáková, Allan Lal, Jody Jollimore, Daniel Grace, Trevor Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian AIDS Treatment Information ExchangeMcGill University Health CentreInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityUniversity of VictoriaAIDS VancouverSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchToronto Metropolitan UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BCPublic Health Agency of CanadaOntario HIV Treatment NetworkCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsHealth careSexual minorityGerontologyMedicinePsychologySexual orientationPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are more likely to be diagnosed with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with the general population. Although newcomers generally experience a health advantage in Canada compared with non‐immigrants and more established immigrants (i.e., healthy immigrant effect), they also experience disparities in access to healthcare services. These disparities, in turn, may lead to unique vulnerabilities for the sexual health of GBM immigrants. We examined disparities in healthcare access, STI testing, and HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among immigrant and non‐immigrant GBM. Using baseline data (collected between February 2017 and August 2019) from a multisite cohort study of GBM in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal (n = 2449), we found that newcomer GBM (migrated ≤ 5 years prior) were less likely to report having a primary healthcare provider than non‐immigrants. This had a weak indirect effect in mediating both access to STI testing and the use of HIV PrEP. These disparities dissipated after controlling for migration precarity (e.g., refugees and those without permanent residency), suggesting that disparities in newcomer GBM healthcare access may, in part, be driven by the large number of newcomers with precarious migration statuses. Public Significance Statement: New immigrants tend to be less likely to have a primary healthcare provider or use other sexual health clinics, which can have adverse consequences for sexual health. This disparity appears to be largely concentrated among temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugees. Interventions should target policies that increase the number of primary healthcare providers, and address immigration policies that lead to fear of deportation due to one's health.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalyses of Social Issues and Public PolicySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207