4.2 Article

Disparities in characteristics in accessing public Australian sexual health services between Medicare-eligible and Medicare-ineligible men who have sex with men

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1753-6405.13029

关键词

sexual health; HIV; health service; men who have sex with men

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant [GNT1172873]
  2. NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant [GNT1172900, GNT1173361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Accessible health services are a key element of effective human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted infection (STI) control. This study aimed to examine whether there were any differences in accessing sexual health services between Medicare-eligible and Medicare-ineligible men who have sex with men (MSM) in Melbourne, Australia. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of MSM attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre between 2016 and 2019. Demographic characteristics, sexual practices, HIV testing practices and STI diagnoses were compared between Medicare-eligible and Medicare-ineligible MSM. Results: We included 5,085 Medicare-eligible and 2,786 Medicare-ineligible MSM. Condomless anal sex in the past 12 months was more common in Medicare-eligible compared to Medicare-ineligible MSM (74.4% vs. 64.9%; p<0.001) although the number of partners did not differ between groups. There was no difference in prior HIV testing practices between Medicare-eligible and Medicare-ineligible MSM (76.1% vs. 77.7%; p=0.122). Medicare-ineligible MSM were more likely to have anorectal chlamydia compared to Medicare-eligible MSM (10.6% vs. 8.5%; p=0.004). Conclusions: Medicare-ineligible MSM have less condomless sex but a higher rate of anorectal chlamydia, suggesting they might have limited access to STI testing or may be less willing to disclose high-risk behaviour. Implications for public health: Scaling up access to HIV and STI testings for Medicare-ineligible MSM is essential.

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

4.2
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