4.1 Article

Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and the likelihood of decreased condom use are both associated with unprotected anal intercourse and the perceived likelihood of becoming HIV positive among Australian gay and bisexual men

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 258-263

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050312

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of New South Wales
  2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and the likelihood of decreased condom use among Australian gay and bisexual men. Methods A national, online cross-sectional survey was conducted in April to May 2011. Bivariate relationships were assessed with chi(2) or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess independent relationships with primary outcome variables. Results Responses from 1161 HIV-negative and untested men were analysed. Prior use of antiretroviral drugs as PrEP was rare (n=6). Just over a quarter of the sample (n=327; 28.2%) was classified as willing to use PrEP. Willingness to use PrEP was independently associated with younger age, having anal intercourse with casual partners (protected or unprotected), having fewer concerns about PrEP and perceiving oneself to be at risk of HIV. Among men who were willing to use PrEP (n=327), only 26 men (8.0%) indicated that they would be less likely to use condoms if using PrEP. The likelihood of decreased condom use was independently associated with older age, unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners (UAIC) and perceiving oneself to be at increased risk of HIV. Conclusions The Australian gay and bisexual men the authors surveyed were cautiously optimistic about PrEP. The minority of men who expressed willingness to use PrEP appear to be appropriate candidates, given that they are likely to report UAIC and to perceive themselves to be at risk of HIV.

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

4.1
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