Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291928›Full record

ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2023

[Discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Chengdu, China].

H Lin, J H Li, X Yang, X T Chen, Y H Shi, C Chang, Y T Hao, W N Cao

Open access · greenAbstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H LinDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
J H LiDepartment of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
X YangDepartment of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
X T ChenDepartment of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Y H ShiDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
C ChangDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
Y T HaoDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
W N CaoDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
Peking University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the discrepancy between behavioral-indicated candidacy and perceived candidacy (behavioral-perceived gap) and its associated factors of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM), so as to identify the focus population of PrEP interventions and to design and implement targeted interventions.

methodsWe recruited a sample of 622 HIV-negative MSM who were regular clients of a community-based organization located in Chengdu, China, from November to December 2021. A cross-sectional questionnaire was used to collect the participants' information on social demographics, PrEP-related knowledge and cognitions, and risk behaviors. In this study, behaviorally eligible for PrEP was defined as performing at least one type of high-risk behavior in the past six months, including inconsistent condom use, sex with an HIV-positive partner, confirmed sexual transmitted infections (STI) diagnosis, substance use, and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) experience. Logistic regression models were fitted, and multivariate analyses were adjusted for social demographics.

resultsAmong the 622 eligible participants, 52.6% (327/622) were classified as behaviorally eligible for PrEP. Only 37.9% (124/327) of the participants perceived themselves as appropriate candidates for PrEP and 62.1% (203/207) had discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy. 85.9% (281/327) had heard of PrEP, and 14.2% (40/281) accessed PrEP information through health care providers. Of the 327 participants eligible for behavior-indicated PrEP use, about half (47.1%) knew how to obtain PrEP medication and 33.0% had a professional PrEP counseling experience. The majority (93.3%) had no or few friends using PrEP. 54.1% scored eight or above in PrEP knowledge level. 66.7% reported having two or more sexual partners in the past six months. After adjusting for age and recruitment channel, we found six factors that were associated with perceived candidacy for PrEP, including PEP use [adjusted odds ratio (

conclusionWe observed a high discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy for PrEP among Chengdu MSM in China. Future PrEP implementation efforts should be made in skills training in assessing HIV infection risk, increasing PrEP knowledge, providing professional PrEP counselling, and fostering PrEP support environment.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSexual and Gender MinoritiesCross-Sectional StudiesHIVHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleCognitive dissonanceHIV infectionsHomosexuality, malePre-exposure prophylaxisRisk perceptionSexual behavior

Identifiers

PMID37291928
PMCPMC10258061
OpenAlexW4379966956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.