HIV/AIDS knowledge among men who have sex with men: applying the item response theory

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge among men who have sex with men in Brazil using the latent trait model estimated by Item Response Theory. METHODS Multicenter, cross-sectional study, carried out in ten Brazilian cities between 2008 and 2009. Adult men who have sex with men were recruited (n = 3,746) through Respondent Driven Sampling. HIV/AIDS knowledge was ascertained through ten statements by face-to-face interview and latent scores were obtained through two-parameter logistic modeling (difficulty and discrimination) using Item Response Theory. Differential item functioning was used to examine each item characteristic curve by age and schooling. RESULTS Overall, the HIV/AIDS knowledge scores using Item Response Theory did not exceed 6.0 (scale 0-10), with mean and median values of 5.0 (SD = 0.9) and 5.3, respectively, with 40.7% of the sample with knowledge levels below the average. Some beliefs still exist in this population regarding the transmission of the virus by insect bites, by using public restrooms, and by sharing utensils during meals. With regard to the difficulty and discrimination parameters, eight items were located below the mean of the scale and were considered very easy, and four items presented very low discrimination parameter (< 0.34). The absence of difficult items contributed to the inaccuracy of the measurement of knowledge among those with median level and above. CONCLUSIONS Item Response Theory analysis, which focuses on the individual properties of each item, allows measures to be obtained that do not vary or depend on the questionnaire, which provides better ascertainment and accuracy of knowledge scores. Valid and reliable scales are essential for monitoring HIV/AIDS knowledge among the men who have sex with men population over time and in different geographic regions, and this psychometric model brings this advantage.

Conflicting genomes, the demic theory & biodiversity

Organismic-centered Darwinism, in order to use direct phenotypes to measure natural selection's effect, necessitates genome's harmony and uniform coherence plus large population sizes. However, modern gene-centered Darwinism has found new interpretations to data that speak of genomic incoherence and disharmony. As a result of these two conflicting positions a conceptual crisis in Biology has arisen. My position is that the presence of small, even pocket-size, demes is instrumental in generating divergence and phenotypic crisis. Moreover, the presence of parasitic genomes as in acanthocephalan worms, which even manipulate suicidal behavior in their hosts; segregation distorters that change meiosis and Mendelian ratios; selfish genes and selfish whole chromosomes, such as the case of B-chromosomes in grasshoppers; P-elements in Drosophila; driving Y-chromosomes that manipulate sex ratios making males more frequent, as in Hamilton's X-linked drive; male strategists and outlaw genes, are eloquent examples of the presence of real conflicting genomes and of a non-uniform phenotypic coherence and genome harmony. Thus, we are proposing that overall incoherence and disharmony generate disorder but also more biodiversity and creativeness. Finally, if genes can manipulate natural selection, they can multiply mutations or undesirable characteristics and even lethal or detrimental ones, hence the accumulation of genetic loads. Outlaw genes can change what is adaptively convenient even in the direction of the trait that is away from the optimum. The optimum can be "negotiated" among the variants, not only because pleiotropic effects demand it, but also, in some cases, because selfish, outlaw, P-elements or extended phenotypic manipulation require it. With organismic Darwinism the genome in the population and in the individual was thought to act harmoniously without conflicts, and genotypes were thought to march towards greater adaptability. Modern Darwinism has a gene-centered vision in which genes, as natural selection's objects can move in dissonance in the direction which benefits their multiplication. Thus, we have greater opportunities for genomes in permanent conflict.

Exploring the interplay between Framing and Securitization theory: the case of the Arab Spring protests in Bahrain

This article advances the theoretical integration between securitization theory and the framing approach, resulting in a set of criteria hereby called security framing. It seeks to make a twofold contribution: to sharpen the study of the ideational elements that underlie the construction of threats, and to advance towards a greater assessment of the audience's preferences. The case study under examination is the 2011 military intervention of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain. The security framing of this case will help illuminate the dynamics at play in one of the most important recent events in Gulf politics.