4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Unprotected Sex, Underestimated Risk, Undiagnosed HIV and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Men Who Have Sex With Men Accessing Testing Services in a New England Bathhouse

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31823bbecf

Keywords

bathhouse; HIV; men having sex with men; sexually transmitted infections; sexual risk

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P30 AI042853, P30 AI042853-13, P30 AI042853-14, P30 AI42853] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

American men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to have increased rates of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Between 2004 and 2010, 1155 MSM were tested for HIV and/or STDs at Providence, RI bathhouse. The prevalence of HIV was 2.3%; syphilis, 2.0%; urethral gonorrhea, 0.1%; urethral chlamydia, 1.3%; 2.2% of the men had hepatitis C antibodies. Although 43.2% of the men engaged in unprotected anal intercourse in the prior 2 months, the majority of the men thought that their behaviors did not put them at increased risk for HIV or STDs. Multivariate analyses found that men who engaged in unprotected anal intercourse were more likely to have had sex with unknown status or HIV-infected partners; have sex although under the influence of drugs; tended to find partners on the internet; and were more likely to have a primary male partner. Men who were newly diagnosed with HIV or syphilis tended to be older than 30 years; had sex with an HIV-infected partner; had a prior STD diagnosis; and met partners on the internet. For 10.5% of the men, bathhouse testing was the first time that they had ever been screened for HIV. Of 24 men who were newly diagnosed with HIV infection, only 1 was not successfully linked to care. These data suggest that offering HIV and STD testing in a bathhouse setting is effective in attracting MSM who are at increased risk for HIV and/or STD acquisition or transmission.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available