Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ontario has the highest number of HIV positive test reports in Canada. Many of the HIV prevention interventions had a moderate effect on changing unsafe sexual behaviors within the young adult population. Participants’ preferences for such interventions could be a contributing factor to the moderate effect of the prevention interventions. Treatment preference is defined as a positive or negative attitude toward a particular treatment. To date few empirical studies examined preferences for educational and cognitive/behavioral interventions focusing on HIV prevention for young adults. Purpose: The purpose of this study is twofold: to examine participants’ preferences for different types of educational and cognitive/behavioral intervention components for HIV prevention and to explore socio-structural, psychological and intervention related factors that affect participants’ preferences for intervention. Design: The study used a cross-sectional mixed methods design. The data were collected using a face-to-face interview. Structured and open-ended questions were used to inquire about participants’ preferences for intervention. Sample: The sample consisted of 150 young adults ranging in age from 18 to 39 years, and able to speak and read English. The sample was recruited from the Greater Toronto Area. Measures: The measures included an adapted questionnaire to elicit participant preference for intervention, the multi-dimensional locus of control questionnaire, AIDS health locus of control questionnaire and standard demographic questions. Analysis: Descriptive statistics were used to examine preferences for intervention components. Regression analysis was done to explore the relationships between the selected factors and participants’ preferences for intervention. Findings: All 150 participants had a preference for an HIV prevention intervention. In terms of preference for treatment type, 64% preferred an intervention that incorporated a combination of educational and cognitive-behavioral components. Specifically, 23% preferred the intervention to incorporate all three components: educational information, communication skills and goal attainment. In addition, 49% of the participants’ preferred an intervention that incorporated an average of 1-4 sessions lasting 90 minutes in length. Of the socio-structural, psychological and intervention related factors hypothesized to be associated with participants’ preferences for intervention type, components and dose, intervention related factors were found to be the most significant factors related to participants’ preferences. Conclusions: Young adults preferred to have an HIV prevention intervention that encompassed a combination of education and cognitive-behavioral components when given the opportunity to choose their preferred interventions. Providing interventions that are consistent with participants’ preferences is posited as beneficial as it increases the participants’ sense of control, satisfaction with care, adherence to intervention protocol and achievement of desired outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".