4.5 Article

Time location sampling in men who have sex with men in the HIV context: the importance of taking into account sampling weights and frequency of venue attendance

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 146, 期 7, 页码 913-919

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268818000675

关键词

Frequency of venue attendance; HIV prevalence; MSM; time location sampling

资金

  1. National Agency for Research against AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (ANRS)
  2. French Health Agency in the Hauts-de-France region
  3. French Health Agency in the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes region
  4. French Health Agency in the Ile-de-France region
  5. French Health Agency in the Occitanie region
  6. French Health Agency in the Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur region
  7. AIDES
  8. Act Up
  9. Le 190
  10. Sidaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sex between men is the most frequent mode of HIV transmission in industrialised countries. Monitoring risk behaviours among men who have sex with men (MSM) is crucial, especially to understand the drivers of the epidemic. A cross-sectional survey (PREVAGAY), based on time-location sampling, was conducted in 2015 among MSM attending gay venues in 5 metropolitan cities in France. We applied the generalised weight share method (GWSM) to estimate HIV seroprevalence for the first time in this population, taking into account the frequency of venue attendance (FVA). Our objectives were to describe the implementation of the sampling design and to demonstrate the importance of taking into account sampling weights, including FVA by comparing results obtained by GWSM and by other methods which use sample weights not including FVA or no weight. We found a global prevalence of 14.3% (95% CI (12.0-16.9)) using GWSM and an unweighted prevalence of 16.4% (95% CI (14.9-17.8)). Variance in HIV prevalence estimates in each city was lower when we did not take into account either the sampling weights or the FVA. We also highlighted an association of FVA and serological status in the most of investigated cities.

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

4.5
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