Influence of previous experience with and beliefs regarding anal cancer screening on willingness to be screened among men living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Implementation of anal cancer screening requires the procedure to be acceptable to the target population. Our objective was to assess the beliefs of men living with HIV regarding anal cancer screening and identify factors associated with their willingness to participate in screening. Methods We developed a cross-sectional questionnaire using the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine beliefs regarding prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related diseases, administered to men living with HIV in 2016–2017 in a multi-site HIV clinical cohort. Correspondence analysis was used to examine the interrelationships between men’s beliefs and willingness to undergo anal cancer screening. We used multivariable proportional odds models to identify factors associated with increasing willingness. Results were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Among 1677 male participants, the vast majority (90%) would be willing to undergo screening by “anal Pap test”; willingness clustered with positive beliefs (e.g. confident they can get screened; disagree that they will feel pain) in the correspondence analysis. Higher self-perceived risk for anal cancer and positive beliefs regarding screening were associated with higher willingness to be screened. Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men had higher willingness (aOR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.29) than heterosexual men. Racialized men reported lower willingness (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.89) than white men. Conclusions Men generally had positive beliefs and were willing to undergo screening, though there were differences by sexual orientation and racial identity. Tailored community-led initiatives could focus on men’s understanding of their risk and expectations of anal cancer screening to facilitate participation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".