4.1 Article

Men who have sex with men in Great Britain: comparison of a self-selected internet sample with a national probability sample

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 200-205

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2006.023283

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare the characteristics of a self-selected, convenience sample of men who have sex with men ( MSM) recruited through the internet with MSM drawn from a national probability survey in Great Britain. Methods: The internet sample ( n = 2065) was recruited through two popular websites for homosexual men in Great Britain in May and June 2003. This sample was compared with MSM ( n = 117) from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles ( Natsal), a probability sample survey of adults resident in Great Britain conducted between May 1999 and February 2001. Results: No significant differences were observed between the samples on a range of sociodemographic and behavioural variables ( p < 0.05). However, men from the internet sample were younger ( p < 0.001) and more likely to be students ( p = 0.001), but less likely to live in London ( p = 0.001) or report good health ( p = 0.014). Although both samples were equally likely to report testing for HIV, men from the internet sample were more likely to report a sexually transmitted infection in the past year ( 16.9% v 4.8%, adjusted odds ratio 4.14, 95% CI 1.76 to 9.74; p = 0.001), anal intercourse ( 76.9% v 63.3%; p = 0.001) and unprotected anal intercourse in the past 3 months ( 45% v 36.6%; p = 0.064). Conclusions: The internet provides a means of recruiting a self-selected, convenience sample of MSM whose social and demographic characteristics are broadly similar to those of MSM drawn from a national probability survey. However, estimates of high-risk sexual behaviour based on internet convenience samples are likely to overestimate levels of sexual risk behaviour in the wider MSM population.

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

4.1
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