BACKGROUND: Serosorting is increasingly assessed in studies of men who have sex with men (MSM). Most research studies have measured serosorting by combining reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) and the occurrence of participant and partner same HIV status (seroconcordance). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definition of serosorting also incorporates intent to be in such a partnership, although few studies incorporate both intent and behavior into their measures. METHODS: Using data from a national, online survey of 3519 US MSM, we assessed the role of intention in seroconcordant partnerships, as measured by participant rating of the importance of shared serostatus when selecting a sex partner. RESULTS: For HIV+ men, 30% partnerships were seroconcordant; of these, 48% reported intent to be in such a partnership (intentional seroconcordance). For HIV- men, 64% partnerships were seroconcordant; of these, 80% reported intentional seroconcordance. Intentional seroconcordance was associated with UAI for HIV+ partnerships [odds ratio (OR): 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3 to 2.9] but not significant for HIV- partnerships (OR: 1.1; CI: 0.99 to 1.3). In separate models where intent was not considered, seroconcordance was associated with UAI for HIV+ partnerships (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 2.2 to 4.6) and for HIV- partnerships (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.3; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of intentionality, seroconcordance was strongly associated with UAI for HIV+ men and weakly associated with UAI for HIV- men. Intentional seroconcordance was not associated with UAI more strongly than was seroconcordance in absence of consideration of intent. Intentionality may not be a critical element of the relationship between seroconcordance and UAI.
BACKGROUND: Serosorting is increasingly assessed in studies of men who have sex with men (MSM). Most research studies have measured serosorting by combining reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) and the occurrence of participant and partner same HIV status (seroconcordance). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definition of serosorting also incorporates intent to be in such a partnership, although few studies incorporate both intent and behavior into their measures. METHODS: Using data from a national, online survey of 3519 US MSM, we assessed the role of intention in seroconcordant partnerships, as measured by participant rating of the importance of shared serostatus when selecting a sex partner. RESULTS: For HIV+ men, 30% partnerships were seroconcordant; of these, 48% reported intent to be in such a partnership (intentional seroconcordance). For HIV- men, 64% partnerships were seroconcordant; of these, 80% reported intentional seroconcordance. Intentional seroconcordance was associated with UAI for HIV+ partnerships [odds ratio (OR): 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3 to 2.9] but not significant for HIV- partnerships (OR: 1.1; CI: 0.99 to 1.3). In separate models where intent was not considered, seroconcordance was associated with UAI for HIV+ partnerships (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 2.2 to 4.6) and for HIV- partnerships (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.3; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of intentionality, seroconcordance was strongly associated with UAI for HIV+ men and weakly associated with UAI for HIV- men. Intentional seroconcordance was not associated with UAI more strongly than was seroconcordance in absence of consideration of intent. Intentionality may not be a critical element of the relationship between seroconcordance and UAI.
Authors: Fengyi Jin; June Crawford; Garrett P Prestage; Iryna Zablotska; John Imrie; Susan C Kippax; John M Kaldor; Andrew E Grulich Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Lisa A Eaton; Seth C Kalichman; Demetria N Cain; Chauncey Cherry; Heidi L Stearns; Christina M Amaral; Jody A Flanagan; Howard L Pope Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Iryna B Zablotska; John Imrie; Garrett Prestage; June Crawford; Patrick Rawstorne; Andrew Grulich; Fengyi Jin; Susan Kippax Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2009-04
Authors: Nicole Crepaz; Gary Marks; Adrian Liau; Mary M Mullins; Latrina W Aupont; Khiya J Marshall; Elizabeth D Jacobs; Richard J Wolitski Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Christian Grov; Demetria Cain; Thomas H F Whitfield; H Jonathon Rendina; Mark Pawson; Ana Ventuneac; Jeffrey T Parsons Journal: Sex Res Social Policy Date: 2016-03-01
Authors: Aaron J Siegler; Patrick S Sullivan; Alex de Voux; Nancy Phaswana-Mafuya; Linda-Gail Bekker; Stefan D Baral; Kate Winskell; Zamakayise Kose; Andrea L Wirtz; Ben Brown; Rob Stephenson Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2014-08-19
Authors: Pamela J Surkan; Ying Li; Lisa P Jacobson; Christopher Cox; Anthony Silvestre; Pamina Gorbach; Linda Teplin; Michael Plankey Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-10
Authors: Leo Wilton; Beryl Koblin; Vijay Nandi; Guozhen Xu; Carl Latkin; David Seal; Stephen A Flores; Pilgrim Spikes Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2015-12
Authors: Laura M Mann; Colleen F Kelley; Aaron J Siegler; Rob Stephenson; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Mary C Cambou; Amaya G Perez-Brumer; Eddy R Segura; H Javier Salvatierra; Javier R Lama; Jorge Sanchez; Jesse L Clark Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Viviane D Lima; Isabell Graf; Curt G Beckwith; Sandra Springer; Frederick L Altice; Daniel Coombs; Bryan Kim; Brian Kim; Lauren Messina; Julio S G Montaner; Anne Spaulding Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240