4.3 Article

Preference towards HIV Self-Testing above Other Testing Options in a Sample of Men Who Have Sex with Men from Five European Countries

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094804

关键词

early diagnosis; HIV; self-testing; men who have sex with men

资金

  1. Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency [CHAFEA: 20131101]
  2. Accion Estrategica Intramural [PI17CIII/00037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among men who have sex with men in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, factors associated with choosing HIV self-testing as a preferred method included age, safe behaviors, and testing frequency. Self-testing was more likely preferred by individuals who were not open about their sexual behaviors.
We analyzed men who have sex with men (MSM) from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain to identify who would choose HIV self-testing as their preferred testing method and assessed their preferred setting to acquire a self-testing kit and to confirm a reactive result. In 2016, we recruited an online sample of 3725 HIV-negative MSM. We used Poisson regression to identify factors associated with choosing self-testing as the preferred testing option. For those choosing it as their preferred option, we assessed the preferred settings to acquire a self-testing kit and to confirm a reactive result. Not being open about one's sexual behaviors with men was associated with choosing self-testing as the preferred option, except in Greece; older age in Greece and Spain; reporting condomless anal intercourses (CAI) in Germany and Portugal; reporting one previous test in Greece; between 2 and 5 in Spain and with having been tested >= 12 months ago in Germany, Portugal and Spain. The internet (32.8%) was the preferred place to acquire a self-testing kit and primary care (34.0%) for confirmation purposes. Self-testing was highly valued, especially among individuals who were not open about their sexual behaviors with men. In certain countries, it was also associated with older age, CAI and being undertested.

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

4.3
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