4.6 Review

Trends in High-Risk Sexual Behaviors among General Population Groups in China: A Systematic Review

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079320

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The objective of this review was to investigate whether Chinese population groups that do not belong to classical high risk groups show an increasing trend of engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors. Methods: We systematically searched the English and Chinese literature on sexual risk behaviors published between January 1980 and March 2012 in PubMed and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). We included observational studies that focused on population groups other than commercial sex workers (CSWs) and their clients, and men who have sex with men (MSM) and quantitatively reported one of the following indicators of recent high-risk sexual behavior: premarital sex, commercial sex, multiple sex partners, condom use or sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We used generalized linear mixed model to examine the time trend in engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors. Results: We included 174 observational studies involving 932,931 participants: 55 studies reported on floating populations, 73 on college students and 46 on other groups (i.e. out-of-school youth, rural residents, and subjects from gynecological or obstetric clinics and premarital check-up centers). From the generalized linear mixed model, no significant trends in engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors were identified in the three population groups. Discussion: Sexual risk behaviors among certain general population groups have not increased substantially. These groups are therefore unlikely to incite a STI/HIV epidemic among the general Chinese population. Because the studied population groups are not necessarily representative of the general population, the outcomes found may not reflect those of the general population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据