4.6 Article

Factors related to condomless anal intercourse between men who have sex with men: results from a European bio-behavioural survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages E174-E186

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdz052

Keywords

HIV; MSM; relationships; respondent-driven sampling; time-location sampling

Funding

  1. Second Programme of Community Action in the field of Health (2008-2013) (Work Plan 2010)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Relationship status is an important factor associated with condomless anal intercourse (CAI) amongst men who have sex with men (MSM). Methods A multi-centre bio-behavioural survey with MSM was conducted in 13 European cities (n = 4901) exploring factors associated with CAI via bivariate and multivariate multilevel logistic regression analyses. Results Likelihood of CAI with casual partners was associated with being out to a majority (AOR = 1.19;95% 0 1,1.42); knowing their HIV status (AOR = 1.86; 95% CI 1.25,2.76); using substances (1-2 AOR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.16,1.63, 2+ AOR = 1.81; 95% CI 135,2.42); being older (AOR = 0.98; 95% 0 0.97,0.99); successful sero-communication (AOR = 0.79; 95% 0 0.67,0.94); and, not having a recent HIV test (AOR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.66,0.92). CAI with steady partners was associated with successful sero-communication (AOR = 2.72; 95% 0 2.72,3.66); riot having a recent HIV test (AOR = 1.26; 95% 0 1.09,1.46), and; being older (AOR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.98,0.99). Conclusions Understandings of partner type and/or relationship status in relation to CAI amongst MSM can potentially play an important role in the development of culturally appropriate HIV/STI prevention and risk-reduction efforts targeting at-risk MSM. Our results speak to the need to consider segmented and tailored public health and health promotion initiatives for MSM with differing CAI behaviours and relationship profiles.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available