scholarly journals HIV Status Differences in Venues Where Highly Sexually Active Gay and Bisexual Men Meet Sex Partners: Results from a Pilot Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 496-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Grov ◽  
Sarit A. Golub ◽  
Jeffrey T. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Sexually Active ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Hiv Status ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
Status Differences

Australian gay and bisexual men’s online preferences about sex with HIV-positive partners

Sexual Health ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Prestage ◽  
Benjamin Bavinton ◽  
Denton Callander ◽  
Steven P. Philpot ◽  
Iryna Zablotska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safer Sex ◽  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Hiv Positive ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Hiv Status ◽  
Capital Cities ◽  
Gay Community ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
Hiv Positive Men

Background Among gay and bisexual men (GBM), ‘serosorting’ is common and involves restricting sex, or at least condomless sex, to partners of the same HIV status. The prevalence of men conveying their serosorting preferences regarding partners they meet online remains unclear. Methods: This study reviewed 57 178 Australian online profiles obtained directly from a popular gay website. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with preferences for meeting HIV-positive partners. Results: Men could indicate their preferences from a list of 22 types of partners; 4358 profiles (7.6%) indicated an interest in meeting HIV-positive men. There were 1959 profiles (3.4%) listing a preference for 21 of the 22 types of men, including 1498 men (2.6%) that specifically excluded HIV-positive men. Men who specifically excluded HIV-positive men on their profiles were younger (mean age 34.7 years), less likely to identify as gay (25.6%) and more likely to always prefer ‘safer sex’ (55.3%) than those who specifically included them (mean age 39.6 years; 62.8% gay-identified; 30.9% preferred safer sex; P < 0.001). Men who specifically excluded HIV-positive partners on their profiles were also more likely to live outside major capital cities (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Being younger, living outside major cities, not identifying as gay, always preferring safer sex and either Caucasian or Asian background were associated with excluding HIV-positive men as potential sex partners. These factors may reflect lower social and community engagement with the gay community. The disinclination to include HIV-positive men as potential sex partners may be due to fear of infection, stigma or poor information about HIV.

scholarly journals The Role of Maladaptive Cognitions in Hypersexuality Among Highly Sexually Active Gay and Bisexual Men

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Pachankis ◽  
H. Jonathon Rendina ◽  
Ana Ventuneac ◽  
Christian Grov ◽  
Jeffrey T. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Sexually Active ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Maladaptive Cognitions ◽  
And Bisexual

scholarly journals 1281. Awareness of U=U Among Gay and Bisexual Men Who Have Sex with Men

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S461-S461
Author(s):  
Meredith E Clement ◽  
Rick Zimmerman ◽  
Josh Grimm ◽  
Joseph Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Transmission ◽  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Hiv Status ◽  
Anal Sex ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
Living With Hiv ◽  
Hiv Negative ◽  
Strong Agreement

Abstract Background The “Undetectable = Untransmittable” (“U=U”) campaign is gaining traction, but prior studies from 2012–2017 have shown that the proportion of gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM) who are aware of or have perceived accuracy of U=U is low. We report findings from a survey administered to GBMSM in 2018 to understand whether the landscape is changing with respect to U=U message dissemination. Methods GBMSM were recruited on gay dating apps to complete a 96 question survey. Survey data were collected in April-August of 2018. Collected data elements included demographic information, HIV status, ART and PrEP use, and beliefs and opinions regarding HIV transmission. Results 969 GBMSM completed the survey; of whom, 678 had analyzable data (241 had never had anal sex with a man and 54 were missing ≥1 of the variables used in the analysis). Average age was 43 years, 65% were white, 15% black, 15% white, and 15% were HIV-infected (of whom 92% were on anti-retrovirals). Of the 85% who were HIV-uninfected, 39% were on PrEP. In response to the statement that a person with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV to an HIV-uninfected person, 24% strongly agreed. Among HIV-negative GBMSM, 33% of those on PrEP agreed and 12% of those not on PrEP agreed. Among those living with HIV, 42% agreed. A multivariable logistic regression was run to explain correlates of strong agreement with U=U, using the following variables: age, education, being Black, being Hispanic, relationship status, number of lifetime male sexual partners, condom use with most recent anal sex, HIV status, PrEP use, and attitudes about living with HIV. Variables associated with strong agreement with U=U were living with HIV (AOR = 1.63, P < 0.001), taking PrEP (AOR = 2.85, P < 0.001), most recent encounter’s condom use (AOR = 2.22, P = 0.003), and having positive attitudes about living with HIV (AOR= 1.93, P < 0.001). Table 1 shows percentages for each of these variables (bivariate relationships) strongly agreeing with U=U. Conclusion Now that U=U has been scientifically proven, the challenge is public awareness. U=U awareness seems to be improving among GBMSM, with HIV-negative GBMSM making the greatest strides. Education around U=U and PrEP efficacy may help reduce guilt around HIV transmission and alleviate HIV stigma. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals High willingness to use novel HIV and bacterial sexually transmitted infection partner notification, testing, and treatment strategies among gay and bisexual men

2019 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A John ◽  
Tyrel J Starks ◽  
H Jonathon Rendina ◽  
Jeffrey T Parsons ◽  
Christian Grov
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Partner Notification ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Casual Partner ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Anal Sex ◽  
Condomless Anal Sex ◽  
And Bisexual

ObjectivesWe sought to determine willingness of gay and bisexual men (GBM) to give HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits with patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) and engage in geosocial sexual networking (GSN) app-based partner notification.MethodsA nationwide sample of GBM who self-tested HIV negative (n=786) were asked about their willingness to give recent sex partners (main and casual) PDPT with an HIVST kit (PDPT+HIVST) after hypothetical bacterial STI (BSTI) diagnosis. Men were also asked about their willingness to notify sexual partners met on GSN apps using an anonymous app function after BSTI diagnosis. We examined associations of relationship status and condomless anal sex with casual partners, recent BSTI diagnosis and perceived risk of HIV on PDPT+HIVST and anonymous app-based partner notification willingness (dichotomised) using binary logistic regressions, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education and US region. From the partner’s perspective after receiving an app-based referral, frequency measures were used to report intentions for obtaining subsequent HIV/BSTI counselling and testing, engaging in HIVST if provided a free voucher, and obtaining BSTI treatment from a pharmacy with prescription voucher.ResultsMost (90.1%) were willing to give PDPT+HIVST to recent sex partners after STI diagnosis, and nearly all (96.4%) were willing to notify sex partners met online using an anonymous function within GSN apps. Regardless of casual partner condomless anal sex engagement, partnered GBM had higher odds of reporting willingness to give PDPT+HIVST compared with single men who recently engaged in condomless anal sex with a casual partner. If anonymously notified via an app, 92.5% reported they would likely obtain counselling and testing, 92.8% would engage in HIVST if provided a free voucher, and 93.4% would obtain treatment from a pharmacy with prescription voucher.ConclusionsGBM generally found novel partner notification, testing, and treatment strategies acceptable, indicating the need for feasibility and cost-effectiveness evaluations.

scholarly journals How can we increase notification of exposure to STIs between gay and bisexual men?: intervention development using stakeholder engagement, qualitative methods and behavioural science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Flowers ◽  
Makeda Gerressu ◽  
Julie McLeod ◽  
Jean McQueen ◽  
Gabriele Vojt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Gay And Bisexual Men ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Bisexual Men ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
And Bisexual

Rationale: The first key step in contact tracing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is to notify recent exposed sex partners. Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) bear a high burden of STIs and one-off partners contribute disproportionately to community transmission, posing a particular challenge to contact tracing. Here we explore and theorise the barriers and facilitators of GBMSM telling their one-off sexual partners about their exposure to STIs. Design: Using focus groups with diverse GBMSM from Leeds, Glasgow, London and on-line (n=28) we used a multi-level approach to intervention development to enhance contact tracing. This framework included initial stakeholder engagement; deductive thematic analysis to identify key barriers and facilitators to contact tracing with one-off partners; the use of the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to theorise these barriers and facilitators and subsequently the use of the behaviour change wheel (BCW), incorporating the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTT), to suggest intervention content to enhance the key step of notifying partners; and final stakeholder input to ensure this content was fit for purpose and satisfied the APEASE criteria. Results: In relation to the TDF, the barriers and facilitators primarily related to beliefs about consequences. Having used the BCW and further stakeholder engagement, our final intervention recommendations related to focussed efforts to change the culture and corresponding norms and social practice of notifying sex partners about the risk of infection in GBMSM communities. This could usefully be achieved through dedicated community engagement and partnership work, through focussed mass and social media interventions twinned with focussed peer-led work to normalise and destigmatise contact tracing. Conclusion: Through systematically working with key stakeholders, GBMSM communities and using a range of tools from the behavioural sciences, we have developed a suite of evidence-based and theoretically informed intervention content which, if developed further, could enhance GBMSMs willingness to notify sex partners about their risk of infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document