4.2 Article

An evaluation of factors associated with sexual risk taking among Black men who have sex with men: a comparison of younger and older populations

期刊

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 665-674

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10865-016-9734-x

关键词

HIV; Age; Prevention; Black men who have sex with men

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH094230]
  2. National Institute of Nursing Research [R01NR013865]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the United States, rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are highest among Black men who have sex with men (BMSM). Prior research indicates that younger BMSM in particular (i.e., BMSM 29 years of age and younger) are most at risk for HIV infection, and that HIV incidence in this subpopulation has risen in recent years. It remains unclear, however, why younger BMSM, relative to BMSM 30 years of age and older, are at increased risk for HIV infection. For the current study, we surveyed 450 BMSM located in the Atlanta, GA metropolitan and surrounding areas. We assessed BMSM's depressive symptoms, substance use during sex, psycho-social risk factors (i.e., HIV risk perceptions, condom use self-efficacy, internalized homophobia, and perceived HIV stigmatization), and sexual risk taking (i.e., condomless anal intercourse [CAI]). We found that younger BMSM (YBMSM) and older BMSM (OBMSM) differed with respect to factors associated with CAI. In multivariable models, alcohol use before or during sex, lower educational attainment, and sexual orientation (i.e., bisexual sexual orientation) were significantly associated with increased CAI for YBMSM, while HIV risk perceptions and internalized homophobia were significantly, negatively associated with CAI among OBMSM. Rates of engaging in CAI were similar across the two age cohorts; however, factors related to CAI varied by these two groups. Findings emphasize the need to consider targeted interventions for different generational cohorts of BMSM.

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