| Literature DB >> 16768794 |
Juan-Pablo Gutiérrez1, Diana Molina-Yepez, Ken Morrison, Fiona Samuels, Stefano M Bertozzi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Ecuador, the prevalence of HIV in the general population is approximately 0.3%. However, up to 17% prevalence has been reported among specific groups of homosexual and bisexual men. The objective of this study is to explore correlates of condom use among men who have sex with men (MSM) across eight cities in Ecuador.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16768794 PMCID: PMC1513207 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Percentage of MSM by category of self-identification (n = 2,594)
| Active bisexual | 906 (35%) |
| Active and passive bisexual | 108 (4%) |
| Passive bisexual | 57 (2%) |
| Masculine gay | 571 (22%) |
| Heterosexual | 350 (13%) |
| Transsexual | 18 (1%) |
| 48 (2%) | |
| Transgender | 43 (2%) |
| Other | 67 (3%) |
Socio-demographic characteristics of participating Ecuadorian MSM (n = 2,594)
| Age (mean & 95% CI*) | 24.8 (22.3 – 27.3) |
| Unmarried (percent & 95% CI*) | 78% (72% – 84%) |
| Has at least one child (percent & 95% CI*) | 25% (18% – 32%) |
| Can read and write a message/letter (percent & 95% CI*) | 94% (91% – 97%) |
| Years of schooling (mean & 95% CI*) | 9.7 (8.4 – 10.9) |
| Sex work as a main income source (percent & 95% CI*) | 10% (6% – 14%) |
| Family is aware of his sex preference (percent & 95% CI*) | 29% (21% – 38%) |
| Community is aware of his sex preference (percent & 95% CI*) | 87% (79% – 95%) |
| Has been a victim of police aggression because of his preference (percent & 95% CI*) | 25% (17% – 34%) |
| Has never used a condom (percent & 95% CI*) | 24% (12% – 36%) |
| Knows where to obtain a free condom (percent & 95% CI*) | 16% (12% – 21%) |
| Average number of male partners in the preceding week (median, IQR) | 1 (0 – 5) |
| Used condom with all 3 last partners# (percent & 95% CI*) | 25% (15% – 35%) |
| Not used condom with any of 3 last partners# (percent & 95% CI*) | 55% (45% – 67%) |
| Last sexual partner was female (percent & 95% CI*) | 30% (10% – 49%) |
*Confidence intervals consider the design effect for clustering. # For some MSM, only 2 sexual partners were reported
Association of selected variables with condom use for anal/vaginal sex by MSM with their sexual partners in bivariate & multivariate analysis (prevalence ratios* & 95% confidence intervals**).
| Female partner | No | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Unmarried | No | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Schooling years | Up to 5 years | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 6 to 8 years | 1.01 (0.83 – 1.12) | 0.97 (0.78 – 1.11) | |
| 9 years and over | 1.09 (0.66 – 1.65) | 0.89 (0.46 – 1.52) | |
| Age (years) | Under 19 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 19 to 22 | 1.08 (0.94 – 1.17) | 1.11 (0.98 – 1.2) | |
| 23 to 28 | 1.11 (0.98 – 1.21) | 0.95 (0.76 – 1.09) | |
| 29 and over | 0.96 (0.74 – 1.14) | 0.93 (0.71 – 1.1) | |
| Price of condom | Low | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Number of partners in previous week | None | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 1 | 1.03 (0.88 – 1.15) | ||
| 2 a 4 | 1.08 (0.94 – 1.18) | ||
| Family is aware of sexual preference | No | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 1.15 (1 – 1.27) | ||
| Respondent consumed alcohol prior to sexual activity | No | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Yes | 1.03 (0.97 – 1.09) | 0.99 (0.91 – 1.05) | |
| Sexual partner was a new one | No | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Life-skills index | Low | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Social capital index | Low | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| High | 1 (0.7 – 1.36) | 1.28 (0.77 – 1.87) | |
| Interaction life-skills index & social capital index | Low and low | 1.0 | |
| Medium and high | 0.77 (0.45 – 1.03) | ||
| High and high | 0.62 (0.28 – 1.04) | ||
| Socio-economic level index | Low | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Medium low | 0.97 (0.82 – 1.09) | 1.02 (0.83 – 1.15) | |
| 1.04 (0.84 – 1.18) | |||
| 1.06 (0.85 – 1.22) | |||
*Calculated by using the formula RR = OR/[(1-P0)+(P0*OR)]. [8] **95% confidence intervals were estimated considering fixed effects by city and random effects by MSM