4.4 Article

Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors

期刊

AIDS
卷 21, 期 15, 页码 2083-2091

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282e9a64b

关键词

black; gay; HIV/AIDS; homosexual; MSM; risk behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify factors that contribute to the racial disparity in HIV prevalence between black and white men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases, online bibliographies, and publication reference lists yielded 53 quantitative studies of MSM published between 1980 and 2006 that stratified HIV risk behaviors by race. Meta-analyses were performed to compare HIV risks between black and white MSM across studies. Results: Compared with white MSM, black MSM reported less overall substance use [odds ratio (OR), 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.97], fewer sex partners (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92), less gay identity (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.48), and less disclosure of same sex behavior (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.60). HIV-positive black MSM were less likely than HIV-positive white MSM to report taking antiretroviral medications (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.61). Sexually transmitted diseases were significantly greater among black MSM than white MSM (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.07-2.53). There were no statistically significant differences by race in reported unprotected anal intercourse, commercial sex work, sex with a known HIV-positive partner, or HIV testing history. Conclusions: Behavioral risk factors for HIV infection do not explain elevated HIV rates among black MSM. Continued emphasis on risk behaviors will have only limited impact on the disproportionate rates of HIV infection among black MSM. Future research should focus on the contribution of other factors, such as social networks, to explain racial disparities in HIV infection rates. (C) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.4
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