P-527. A Scoping Review of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for Indigenous Peoples: Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to PrEP Access, Use and Adherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Indigenous Peoples in Canada, which include First Nations, Métis, and Inuit, experience disproportionately higher incidences of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection compared to settler Canadians. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) involves the daily use of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV transmission to HIV-negative people. When taken as prescribed, PrEP can reduce one's risk of getting HIV from sex by over 90% and by more than 70% among people who inject drugs. While PrEP awareness has increased over the years, reasons for its lack of uptake in Indigenous populations remains unknown. A scoping review was done to understand the current literature available how Indigenous Peoples in Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand conceptualize PrEP. Methods We searched electronic databases (Pubmed, Ovid Medline, i-Portal, and Native Health Databases) for studies published between January 2012 and December 2023 for articles using variants of the search terms “Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis” and “Indigenous” . Studies were included if they discussed barriers and/or facilitators to PrEP awareness, interest, uptake, or continuation among Indigenous Peoples. Studies were independently screened by two authors. Results Results were synthesized narratively. Of 50 citations identified, 3 studies were eligible for inclusion. Four themes arose from the literature - all of which discussed barriers to PrEP: (1) limited Indigenous engagement and representation in research, (2) stigma and cultural barriers, (3) resource constraints and (4) geographical and socioeconomic barriers to PrEP. Conclusion There is a paucity of literature exploring barriers and facilitators to PrEP access, use and adherence in Indigenous Peoples. Given the colonial history and violence that Indigenous Peoples faced and continue to face in western countries such as Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand, greater attention to culturally safe and trauma informed interventions will likely improve PrEP awareness and use in Indigenous populations. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
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 | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".