| Literature DB >> 25086742 |
Shreena Ramanathan1, Sucheta Deshpande, Abhishek Gautam, Dilip B Pardeshi, Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Prabuddhagopal Goswami, Rajatashuvra Adhikary, Bitra George, Ramesh S Paranjape, Mandar M Mainkar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study assessed coverage, changes in condom use, and prevalence of HIV and other STIs among high-risk men who have sex with men (HR-MSM; highly visible, recruited from cruising sites/sex venues) and transgender (TG; male-to-female transgender persons, also called hijras) in the Indian state of Maharashtra.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25086742 PMCID: PMC4131028 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
District-level intended Avahan coverage and intervention in Maharashtra for high-risk men who have sex with men and transgendered persons (HR-MSM/TG)
| Districts | District population1(thousands) | Estimated size of HR-MSM/TG in districts2 | Avahan intended coverage3 | History/type of intervention coverage* | IBBA samplea | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | Round 2 | |||||
| Ahmednagar | 4,088 | 534 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Beed | 2,161 | 791 | 84% | First and solo | ||
| Jalgaon | 3,679 | 594 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Kolhapur | 3,515 | 596 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Latur | 2,080 | 256 | 48% | First and solo | ||
| Mumbai | 13,830 | 14,266 | 21% | Not first and minor | 400+ | 373+ |
| Thane | 8,131 | 800 | 12% | No Avahan intervention | ||
| Nandurbar | 1,309 | 41 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Nashik | 4,993 | 172 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Parbhani | 1,527 | 202 | 100% | First and solo | ||
| Pune | 9,924 | 3,200 | 100% | Not first but solo | 253 | 279 |
| Sangli | 2,583 | 400 | 54% | Not first but solo | ||
| Satara | 2,796 | 185 | 37% | First and solo | ||
| Solapur | 3,849 | 1,001 | 50% | Not first and only clinical services | ||
| Yavatmal | 2,460 | 204 | 100% | First and solo | ||
Sources: 1) Census 2001; 2) District mapping data; 3) Avahan’s computerized monitoring and information system (CMIS) 2009.
*First and solo: 1) Prior to Avahan (i.e., 2003), when there was no intervention for MSM/TG; 2) Avahan was the only intervention in the district.
Not first but major: Prior to Avahan (i.e., 2003), when MSM interventions existed; currently Avahan covers more than 50% of the mapped HR-MSM/TG population in the district.
Not first but equal: Prior to Avahan (i.e., 2003), when MSM interventions existed; currently Avahan covers 30–50% of the mapped MSM population in the district.
Not first and only clinical services: Prior to Avahan (i.e., 2003), when MSM interventions existed; Avahan provides only clinical services in the district.
+Mumbai and Thane were together considered one domain for sampling.
aIBBA: Integrated behavioral and biological assessment.
Avahan evaluation framework and the data sources used for evaluation
| Evaluation question | Indicator | Data source |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| a. | CMIS* | |
| b. | CMIS | |
| c. | CMIS | |
| d. | IBBA** | |
|
| ||
| a. | CMIS | |
| b. | CMIS and condom social marketing data | |
| 1. Absolute number of free condoms distributed by the Avahan program annually and condom sales from project-supported condom social marketing during 2005–2008 | ||
| 2. | ||
| 3. Proportion of MSM reporting source of obtaining condoms last time from outreach worker/peer educator/NGO | IBBA | |
| c. | IBBA | |
| d. | Individual level CMIS data | |
|
|
| |
| a. Proportion of MSM reporting last time condom use with paying male partners over the two rounds of IBBA | IBBA | |
| b. Proportion of MSM reporting consistent condom use with paid male partners over the two rounds of IBBA | IBBA | |
| c. Proportion of MSM reporting consistent condom use with regular male partners over the two rounds of IBBA | IBBA | |
| d. Proportion of MSM reporting consistent condom use with other non-commercial male partners over the two rounds of IBBA | IBBA | |
|
|
| |
| a. STI prevalence (reactive syphilis serology, high-titre syphilis, gonorrhoea (NG), chlamydia (CT), any STIs (NG, or CT or high-titre syphilis) | IBBA | |
|
| IBBA | |
| a. HIV prevalence among MSM aggregated from all districts in the two rounds of IBBA | ||
|
|
| IBBA |
| a. Program exposure is defined as exposure to any one of the following: ever contacted by Avahan peer educators, ever visited Avahan program clinic, and ever received condoms from peer educators; its association with consistent condom use with commercial and non-commercial partners using pooled data from the two rounds of IBBA | ||
| b. Duration of program exposure and its association with condom use with commercial and non-commercial partners using pooled data from the two rounds of IBBA | ||
| c. Program exposure, as defined above, and its association with presence of any STI (gonorrhoea, chlamydia or high-titre syphilis [ |
***In both rounds, MSM were asked about the number of times they had had anal sex with a paying male partner in the past one week; for paid male partners, it was the number of times they had anal sex in the past one month.
*CMIS: Avahan’s computerized management information system.
**IBBA: Integrated behavioral and biological assessment.
Descriptive statistics (demographics, sexual behaviors, condom use, exposure to the program, and STIs, including HIV) of 653 and 652 HR-MSM/TG, respectively, in rounds 1 and 2 of IBBA, Maharashtra, India
| Variables | Round 1 (N = 653)% | Round 2 (N = 652)% | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 18–24 | 62.0 | 46.4 | 0.02 |
| 25–29 | 22.6 | 35.3 | ||
| 30–34 | 11.6 | 10.5 | ||
| 35–39 | 2.1 | 4.9 | ||
| ≥ 40 | 1.8 | 2.8 | ||
|
| Literate (can read and write) | 89.4 | 96.4 | 0.01 |
| Illiterate | 10.6 | 3.6 | ||
|
| Ever married | 18.1 | 23.1 | 0.26 |
| Never married | 81.9 | 76.9 | ||
|
| Unemployed/student | 17.9 | 17.4 | 0.09 |
| Self-employed/business/trade | 22.6 | 29.0 | ||
| Non-agricultural/agricultural labor | 1.7 | 2.4 | ||
| Service (government/private) | 43.5 | 45.3 | ||
| Sex work | 11.3 | 3.8 | ||
| Others (massagers/transport workers) | 3.0 | 2.2 | ||
|
| Yes | 65.7 | 83.2 | 0.02 |
| No | 34.3 | 16.8 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| < 15 years | 32.0 | 33.3 | 0.83 |
| ≥ 15 years | 68.0 | 66.7 | ||
|
| Yes | 23.2 | 33.3 | 0.04 |
| No | 76.8 | 66.7 | ||
|
| Had regular male partner(s) | 53.6 | 59.4 | 0.35 |
| Had paying male partner(s) | 43.2 | 43.0 | 0.97 | |
| Had paid male partner(s) | 29.9 | 8.6 | < 0.001 | |
| Had other non-commercial male/transgender partner(s) | 51.3 | 71.9 | < 0.001 | |
| Had regular female partner(s) | 32.2 | 37.3 | 0.36 | |
|
|
| 27.5 | 39.0 | < 0.001 |
|
| 43.3 | 15.4 | ||
|
| 16.0 | 9.7 | ||
|
| 6.6 | 33.6 | ||
|
| 6.6 | 2.3 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| With regular male partner | 65.9 | 91.3 | < 0.001 |
| With paying male partner | 81.0 | 98.3 | < 0.001 | |
| With paid male/hijra partner | 84.8 | 57.7 | 0.01 | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner | 82.2 | 80.3 | 0.75 | |
|
| With regular male partner(s) | 51.6 | 62.0 | 0.23 |
| With paid male/hijra partner(s) | 75.6 | 44.4 | 0.06 | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner(s) | 60.2 | 68.7 | 0.37 | |
|
| ||||
| Contacted by Avahan peer educator/outreach worker | 52.6 | 50.3 | 0.72 | |
| Visited Avahan-supported clinic | 28.3 | 46.3 | 0.005 | |
| Received condoms from peer educator/outreach worker | 56.7 | 49.9 | 0.28 | |
| Exposed to Avahan interventionb | 60.3 | 57.7 | 0.71 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Reactive Syphilis Serology - Yes† | 8.8 | 1.1 | < 0.001 |
| Syphilis titre ≥ 1:8†† | 3.8 | 0.2 | < 0.001 | |
| Chlamydia infection – Yes | 3.7 | 1.1 | 0.20 | |
|
| 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.10 | |
| HIV-1 infection – Yes | 12.3 | 6.3 | 0.16 | |
a = All the proportions shown are weighted.
† = Any person reactive on RPR and TPHA.
†† = The titre obtained on RPR was used to measure this variable.
a Kothis are self-identified MSM who are generally feminine and receptive partners during anal sex; panthis are those who are masculine and insertive partners. The term ‘double-decker’ (also called ‘AC/DC’ in some study sites) refers to those men who are both insertive and receptive partners in anal sex. Even though hijras belong to a distinct socio-cultural group and can actually be regarded as male-to-female transgender people, they are included under the ‘MSM’ umbrella in this study.
bDefined as exposure to any one of the following: ever contacted by Avahan peer educator, ever visited Avahan program clinic, and ever received condoms from peer educators.
Figure 1Scale and coverage of different components of the Avahan programme in high-risk men who have sex with men and transgendered persons (HR-MSM/TG) Maharashtra, India 2005-2009. a) Exposure to Avahan program; b) Monthly contact by program staff and visit to the STI clinic; c) Frequency of visits to Avahan STI clinic; d) Peer educators / Outreach workers from Avahan districts.
Association between outcomes (condom use and STIs, including HIV) and rounds of IBBA, Maharashtra, India
| Variables | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted models | Adjusted modelsc | ||
|
| |||
|
| With regular male partner | 1.93 (1.48 – 2.53)** | 5.15 (2.68 – 9.90)** |
| With paying male partner | 13.77 (2.94 – 64.59)** | 13.23 (2.84 – 61.92)** | |
| With paid male/hijra partner | 0.24 (0.08 – 0.73)* | 0.91 (0.27 – 3.10) | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner | 0.88 (3.16 – 6.74) | 0.71 (0.27 – 1.85) | |
|
| With regular male partner(s) | 1.07 (0.83 – 1.38) | 1.90 (1.01 – 3.58)* |
| With paid male/hijra partner(s) | 0.26 (0.06 – 1.10) | 0.57 (0.16 – 2.08) | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner(s) | 1.45 (0.64 – 3.31) | 1.71 (0.82 – 3.58) | |
|
| |||
|
| Reactive Syphilis Serology† | 0.12 (0.05 – 0.25)** | 0.11 (0.05 – 0.22)** |
| Syphilis titre > 1:8 †† | 0.06 (0.02 – 0.19)** | 0.08 (0.03 – 0.27)** | |
| Chlamydia infection | 0.04 (0.02 – 0.07)** | 0.35 (0.05 – 2.41) | |
|
| 0.003 (0.001 – 0.010) | -- | |
| HIV 1 infection | 0.48 (0.17 – 1.34) | 0.39 (0.17 – 0.87)* | |
a = The estimates shown here are weighted estimates.
b = The reference for each of the estimate is Round 1 of the IBBA. Thus, for consistent condom use with a regular male partner, the interpretation will be as follows: subjects in Round 2 of IBBA were significantly more likely to report consistent condom use with a regular male partner, compared with those in Round 1 of IBBA (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.01 – 3.58).
c = The models were adjusted for district of interview, self-reported sexual identity, current age, literacy, place of residence, sex outside place of residence, and main source of income.
*p = 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
† = Any person reactive on RPR and TPHA.
†† = The titre obtained on RPR was used to measure this variable.
Association between condom use (during last sex act and consistent condom use) and exposure to various components of the Avahan program intervention in rounds 1 and 2 of IBBA, according to different types of male partners, Maharashtra, India
| Variables | Percentages | Odds ratios | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to Avahan intervention | Not exposed to Avahan intervention | Unadjusted models odds ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted modelscodds ratio (95% CI) | ||
|
| With regular male partner | 80.9 | 76.9 | 1.27 (0.68 – 2.38) | 1.17 (0.64 – 2.14) |
| With paying male partner | 89.3 | 88.0 | 1.13 (0.53 – 2.44) | 0.75 (0.39 – 1.43) | |
| With paid male/hijra partner | 83.8 | 75.5 | 1.68 (0.58 – 4.86) | 2.34 (0.60 – 9.11) | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner | 79.5 | 84.0 | 0.74 (0.35 – 1.57) | 0.73 (0.36 – 1.50) | |
|
| With regular male partner(s) | 74.2 | 57.5 | 2.68 (1.36 – 5.29)** | 2.46 (1.34 – 4.52)** |
| With paid male/hijra partner(s) | 76.5 | 63.4 | 1.89 (0.81 – 4.38) | 3.15 (1.37 – 7.25)** | |
| With other non-commercial male/hijra partner(s) | 73.9 | 50.1 | 2.82 (1.25 – 6.36)* | 3.41 (1.56 – 7.50)** | |
a = The estimates shown here are weighted estimates.
b = The reference for each of the estimate is not being exposed to that particular component of the program. Thus, for consistent condom use with a regular male partner, the interpretation will be as follows: subjects who were exposed to Avahan program were more likely to report consistent condom use with a regular male partner compared with those who were not contacted by the peer (adjusted OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.34 – 4.52).
c = The models were adjusted for district of interview, self-reported sexual identity, current age, literacy, place of residence, sex outside place of residence, and main source of income.
* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.