The exposure to relevant social and/or historical events can increase the generation of false memories (FMs). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a calamity challenging health, political, and journalistic bodies, with media generating confusion that has facilitated the spread of fake news. In this respect, our study aims at investigating the relationships between memories (true memories, TMs vs. FMs) for COVID-19-related news and different individual variables (i.e., use of traditional and social media, COVID-19 perceived and objective knowledge, fear of the disease, depression and anxiety symptoms, reasoning skills, and coping mechanisms). One hundred and seventy-one university students (131 females) were surveyed. Overall, our results suggested that depression and anxiety symptoms, reasoning skills, and coping mechanisms did not affect the formation of FMs. Conversely, the fear of loved ones contracting the infection was found to be negatively associated with FMs. This finding might be due to an empathy/prosociality-based positive bias boosting memory abilities, also explained by the young age of participants. Furthermore, objective knowledge (i) predicted an increase in TMs and decrease in FMs and (ii) significantly mediated the relationships between the use of social media and development of both TMs and FMs. In particular, higher levels of objective knowledge strengthened the formation of TMs and decreased the development of FMs following use of social media. These results may lead to reconsidering the idea of social media as the main source of fake news. This claim is further supported by either the lack of substantial differences between the use of traditional and social media among participants reporting FMs or the positive association between use of social media and levels of objective knowledge. The knowledge about the topic rather than the type of source would make a difference in the process of memory formation.

Objective: There is international interest in the integration of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine HIV care, but little work has synthesized the content of published initiatives. We conducted a rapid scoping review primarily to identify their selected patient‐reported outcomes and respective instruments.Methods: Four databases were searched on 4 May 2022 (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO) for relevant English language documents published from 2005 onwards. Dual review of at least 20% of records, full texts and data extraction was performed. Outcomes and instruments were classified with an adapted 14‐domain taxonomy. Instruments with evidence of validation were described.Results: Of 13 062 records generated for review, we retained a final sample of 94 documents, referring to 60 distinct initiatives led mostly in the USA (n = 29; 48% of initiatives), Europe (n = 16; 27%) and Africa (n = 9; 15%). The measured patient‐reported outcome domains were: mental health (n = 42; 70%), substance use (n = 23; 38%), self‐management (n = 16; 27%), symptoms (n = 12; 20%), sexual/reproductive health (n = 12; 20%), physical health (n = 9; 15%), treatment (n= 8; 13%), cognition (n = 7; 12%), quality of life (n = 7; 12%), violence/abuse (n = 6; 10%), stigma (n = 6; 10%), socioeconomic issues (n = 5; 8%), social support (n = 3; 5%) and body/facial appearance (n = 1; 2%). Initiatives measured 2.6 outcome domains, on average (range = 1–11). In total, 62 distinct validated PROMs were identified, with 53 initiatives (88%) employing at least one (M = 2.2). Overwhelmingly, the most used instrument was any version of the Patient Health Questionnaire to measure symptoms of depression, employed by over a third (26; 43%) of initiatives.Conclusion: Published PROM initiatives in HIV care have spanned 19 countries and disproportionately target mental health and substance use.

Background: Gay, bisexual, and other men (GBM) who have sex with men living with HIV in serodifferent couples (one partner living with HIV, the other HIV-negative) may encounter unique sexual health challenges. This study aimed to explore their definition of sexual health that could improve service provision. Methods: We interviewed 10 gay-identified men living with HIV from 2017 to 2019 as part of CTNPT013, a study on the sexual health of HIV serodifferent GBM couples conducted at two HIV-specialised clinics in Montreal, Canada. Participants partook in semi-structured interviews on the meaning of sexual health. We performed a content analysis of interview transcripts, coding them according to the 10 dimensions of Robinson’s Sexual Health Model. Results: Mean age of interviewees was 35.4 years (s.d.,10.2; range, 20–53). Every dimension of Robinson’s model was spontaneously evoked, except for body image and spirituality. All men indicated intimacy/relationships (e.g. sexual agreements) and sexual health care/safer sex (e.g. HIV management, risk behaviours) as relevant aspects of sexual health. Other dimensions included: positive sexuality (n = 7), such as pleasure and enjoyment during sex; talking about sex (n = 5), which mainly concerned HIV disclosure; sexual functioning (n = 4); challenges to sexual health (n = 3), including substance abuse; and culture/sexual identity (n = 3). Two participants (n = 2) cited masturbation/fantasy. Conclusions: This study emphasises the multi-faceted nature of sexual health for gay men with HIV in serodifferent couples and the pivotal roles of relationships, HIV, risk management (e.g. via health care, knowledge), and positive sexual experiences. These dimensions could be considered in sexual health promotion interventions targeting this population.

This study investigated the impact of breakup recency and relationship status on mental health (anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, possible alcohol dependence, sexual unhappiness, worry about drug use) and safer sex (sexual assertiveness and non-steady condomless partners) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United Kingdom (UK). We analyzed data from 11,763 UK-based MSM in the European MSM Internet Survey. ANOVAs were run to explore differences in mental health across breakup recency (< 6 months, 6-12 months, 1-5 years, and >5 years ago). Logistic regressions (adjusting for age and HIV status) were used to compare partnered MSM on mental health and safer sex with MSM who had broken up in the last 6 months. ANOVAs revealed significant downward trends for anxiety/depression (F(1) = 11.384, G = -0.061, p < 0.001) and alcohol dependence (F(1) = 10.679, G = -0.084, p < 0.001), decreasing as time passed since the breakup. Sexual unhappiness followed a reverse pattern (F(1) = 82.15, G = 0.137, p < 0.001). Logistic regressions showed that compared to partnered MSM, those who broke up within the past 6 months reported significantly higher levels of anxiety/depression (aOR = 1.55, p < 0.001), suicidal ideation (aOR = 1.63, p < 0.001), alcohol dependence (aOR = 1.21, p < 0.001), and sexual unhappiness (aOR = 1.66, p < 0.001). MSM who have recently experienced breakups may face temporary mental/sexual health challenges, warranting targeted support.