Suspected Mpox Symptoms and Testing in Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The 2022 mpox outbreak in the United States disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Uptake of mpox testing may be related to symptomology, sociodemographic characteristics, and behavioral characteristics. Objective: This study aimed to describe suspected mpox symptoms and testing uptake among a sample of GBMSM recruited via the internet in the United States in August 2022. Methods: We conducted a rapid internet-based mpox survey from August 5 to 15, 2022, among cisgender men 15 years and older who had previously participated in the 2021 American Men's Internet Survey. We estimated the prevalence of suspected mpox symptoms (fever or rash or sores with unknown cause in the last 3 mo) and uptake of mpox testing. We calculated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% CIs for associations between participant characteristics and suspected mpox symptoms and summarized characteristics of GBMSM reporting mpox testing. Among symptomatic GBMSM who did not receive mpox testing, we described testing self-efficacy, barriers, and facilitators. Results: Of 824 GBMSM, 126 (15.3%) reported at least 1 mpox symptom in the last 3 months; 58/126 (46%) with rash or sores, 57 (45.2%) with fever, and 11 (8.7%) with both. Increased prevalence of suspected mpox symptoms was associated with condomless anal sex (CAS; aPR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06-2.20). Mpox testing was reported by 9/824 GBMSM (1%), including 5 with symptoms. Most GBMSM reporting mpox testing were non-Hispanic White men (7/9 vs 1 Black and 1 Hispanic or Latino man), and all 9 lived in urban areas. Most reported having an sexually transmitted infections test (8/9), 2 or more partners (8/9), CAS (7/9), and group sex (6/9) in the last 3 months. Of those tested, 3 reported living with HIV and all were on treatment, whereas the remaining 6 men without HIV reported current pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use. Of symptomatic GBMSM who did not report mpox testing, 47/105 (44.8%) had low mpox testing self-efficacy. Among those with low self-efficacy, the most common barriers to testing were not knowing where to get tested (40/47, 85.1%) and difficulty getting appointments (23/47, 48.9%). Among those with high testing self-efficacy (58/105, 55.2%), the most common facilitators to testing were knowing where to test (52/58, 89.7%), convenient site hours (40/58, 69%), and low-cost testing (38/58, 65.5%). Conclusions: While all GBMSM who reported testing for mpox were linked to HIV treatment or PrEP, those with symptoms but no mpox testing reported fewer such links. This suggests targeted outreach is needed to reduce structural barriers to mpox services among GBMSM in rural areas, Black and Hispanic or Latino GBMSM, and GBMSM living with HIV. Sustaining and scaling community-tailored messaging to promote testing and vaccination represent critical interventions for mpox control among GBMSM in the United States.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".