Jonathan Elford1, Graham Bolding, Lorraine Sherr. 1. City University, Istitute of Health Sciences and St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK. j.elford@city.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether HIV optimism (i.e. optimism in the light of new HIV drug therapies) can account for the recent increase in high-risk sexual behaviour among London gay men. METHODS: Gay men (n = 2938) using London gyms were surveyed annually between 1998 and 2001. Information was collected on HIV status, unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the previous 3 months, and agreement with two statements concerning the severity of and susceptibility to HIV infection. Those who agreed were classified as 'optimistic'. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2001, the percentage of men reporting high-risk UAI (i.e. UAI with a casual partner of unknown or discordant HIV status) increased: HIV-positive men 15.3-38.8%; HIV-negative men 6.8-12.1%; never-tested men 2.1-7.7%; (P < 0.01). Overall, less than a third were optimistic. In cross-sectional analysis, optimistic HIV-positive and -negative men were more likely to report high-risk UAI than other men (P < 0.05). However, the increase in high-risk UAI between 1998 and 2001 was seen in those who were optimistic and those who were not (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, the modelled increase in high-risk UAI over time remained significant after controlling for HIV optimism (P < 0.01), with no significant interaction between optimism and time. CONCLUSION: Among London gay men, no difference was detected between those who were optimistic and those who were not in the rate of increase in high-risk sexual behaviour between 1998 and 2001. Our findings suggest that HIV optimism is unlikely to explain the recent increase in high-risk sexual behaviour in these men.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether HIV optimism (i.e. optimism in the light of new HIV drug therapies) can account for the recent increase in high-risk sexual behaviour among London gay men. METHODS: Gay men (n = 2938) using London gyms were surveyed annually between 1998 and 2001. Information was collected on HIV status, unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the previous 3 months, and agreement with two statements concerning the severity of and susceptibility to HIV infection. Those who agreed were classified as 'optimistic'. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2001, the percentage of men reporting high-risk UAI (i.e. UAI with a casual partner of unknown or discordant HIV status) increased: HIV-positive men 15.3-38.8%; HIV-negative men 6.8-12.1%; never-tested men 2.1-7.7%; (P < 0.01). Overall, less than a third were optimistic. In cross-sectional analysis, optimistic HIV-positive and -negative men were more likely to report high-risk UAI than other men (P < 0.05). However, the increase in high-risk UAI between 1998 and 2001 was seen in those who were optimistic and those who were not (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, the modelled increase in high-risk UAI over time remained significant after controlling for HIV optimism (P < 0.01), with no significant interaction between optimism and time. CONCLUSION: Among London gay men, no difference was detected between those who were optimistic and those who were not in the rate of increase in high-risk sexual behaviour between 1998 and 2001. Our findings suggest that HIV optimism is unlikely to explain the recent increase in high-risk sexual behaviour in these men.
Authors: N Macdonald; S Dougan; C A McGarrigle; K Baster; B D Rice; B G Evans; K A Fenton Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Stephen F Morin; Starley B Shade; Wayne T Steward; Adam W Carrico; Robert H Remien; Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus; Jeffrey A Kelly; Edwin D Charlebois; Mallory O Johnson; Margaret A Chesney Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Françoise Dubois-Arber; André Jeannin; Brenda Spencer; Jean-Pierre Gervasoni; Bertrand Graz; Jonathan Elford; Vivian Hope; France Lert; Helen Ward; Mary Haour-Knipe; Nicola Low; Marita van de Laar Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 3.090