| Literature DB >> 25211511 |
Sheela Godbole1, Suvarna Sane1, Pranil Kamble1, Yujwal Raj2, Nisha Dulhani1, Srinivasan Venkatesh2, D C S Reddy3, Laxmikant Chavan4, Madhulekha Bhattacharya5, Suchitra Bindoria6, Dilip Kadam7, Savita Thakur8, Prakash Narwani9, Elmira Pereira10, Ramesh Paranjape1, Arun Risbud1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indian cultural tradition demanding marriage, many MSM howsoever they self-identify are likely to be married or have sex with women. To consolidate India's HIV prevention gains, it is important to understand and address the interaction between the MSM and heterosexual epidemics in India and create specific interventions for bisexual MSM. The challenge is to identify and intervene this hard to reach population. Data from HIV Sentinel Surveillance 2011 among MSM in four Indian states were analyzed to assess predictors and prevalence of bisexual behaviour in MSM.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25211511 PMCID: PMC4161389 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of MSM in states in west-central India (Year 2011).
| Characteristic | Four states | Goa | Gujarat | Madhya Pradesh | Maharashtra | P value | |
| No. of MSM respondents (%) | 4682 | 486 (10%) | 1968 (42%) | 483 (10%) | 1745 (37%) | ||
|
| 28 (6.4) | 28 (6.3) | 29 (6.7) | 27 (6.4) | 28 (6.1) | <0.01 | |
|
|
| 1901 (41%) | 211 (43%) | 744 (38%) | 257 (53%) | 689 (40%) | <0.01 |
|
| 1452 (31%) | 137 (28%) | 577 (29%) | 120 (25%) | 618 (35%) | ||
|
| 1329 (28%) | 138 (28%) | 647 (33%) | 106 (22%) | 438 (25%) | ||
|
|
| 235 (5%) | 22 (5%) | 120 (6%) | 32 (7%) | 61 (4%) | <0.01 |
|
| 3374 (72%) | 335 (69%) | 1657 (84%) | 304 (63%) | 1078 (62%) | ||
|
| 1069 (23%) | 129 (26%) | 189 (10%) | 145 (30%) | 606 (35%) | ||
|
|
| 2351 (51%) | 164 (34%) | 1039 (53%) | 233 (48%) | 915 (53%) | <0.01 |
|
| 970 (21%) | 73 (15%) | 385 (20%) | 46 (10%) | 466 (27%) | ||
|
| 1318 (28%) | 249 (51%) | 525 (27%) | 203 (42%) | 341 (20%) | ||
|
| 28 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 17 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (0.6%) | ||
|
|
| 2590 (56%) | 335 (69%) | 907 (46%) | 364 (75%) | 984 (57%) | <0.01 |
|
| 2060 (44%) | 151 (31%) | 1051 (54%) | 119 (25%) | 739 (43%) | ||
|
|
| 2381 (51%) | 415 (85%) | 855 (44%) | 132 (28%) | 979 (56%) | <0.01 |
|
| 1229 (26%) | 41 (8%) | 623 (32%) | 195 (41%) | 370 (21%) | ||
|
| 605 (13%) | 19 (4%) | 195 (10%) | 70 (15%) | 321 (19%) | ||
|
| 445 (10%) | 11 (2%) | 289 (15%) | 83 (17%) | 62 (4%) | ||
|
|
| 35 (1%) | 1 (0.2%) | 15 (0.8%) | 15 (3%) | 4 (0.2%) | <0.01 |
|
| 4585 (99%) | 482 (99%) | 1917 (99%) | 463 (97%) | 1723 (99%) | ||
|
| 332 (6.8%) | 22 (4.5%) | 59 (3.0%) | 39 (7.9%) | 173 (9.9%) | <0.01 | |
Note: MSMO: Men having Sex with Men Only, MSMW: Men having Sex with Men and Women, IDU: Injecting Drug Use, *Approx. 0.3%–1.3% data on these variables is missing overall.
Predictors of bisexual behaviour among MSM in west-central India (Year 2011).
| Characteristic | All MSM (%), n = 4650* | MSMW (%), n = 2060 | OR (95% CI) | P value | AOR (95% CI) | P value | |
|
|
| 1895 (41%) | 536 (28%) | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| 1438 (31%) | 695 (48%) | 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) | <0.01 | 3.1 (2.7, 3.7) | <0.01 | |
|
| 1317 (28%) | 829 (63%) | 4.3 (3.7, 5.0) | <0.01 | 6.5 (5.5, 7.7) | <0.01 | |
|
|
| 2334/4615 (51%) | 729 (31%) | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| 970/4615 (21%) | 633 (65%) | 4.1 (3.5, 4.8) | <0.01 | 5.8 (4.8, 7.0) | <0.01 | |
|
| 1311/4615 (28%) | 686 (52%) | 2.4 (2.1, 2.8) | <0.01 | 2.7 (2.3, 3.1) | <0.01 | |
|
|
| 2372/4636 (51%) | 1118 (47%) | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| 1216/4636 (26%) | 430 (35%) | 0.61 (0.53, 0.71) | <0.01 | 0.88 (0.75, 1.03) | 0.114 | |
|
| 604/4636 (13%) | 368 (61%) | 1.75 (1.46, 2.1) | <0.01 | 1.2 (0.95, 1.5) | 0.128 | |
|
| 444/4636 (10%) | 135 (30%) | 0.49 (0.39, 0.61) | <0.01 | 0.49 (0.38, 0.62) | <0.01 | |
|
|
| 4562/4597 (99.2%) | 2010 (44%) | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| 35/4597 (0.8%) | 23 (66%) | 2.4 (1.2, 4.9) | 0.013 | 2.1 (1.0, 4.6) | 0.05 | |
Note: Column 2: Denominators for percentages are respective figures in 1st column. OR: Odds Ratio; AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio. * Missing information about bisexuality for 32 records; IDU: Injecting Drug Use, MSMW: Men having Sex with Men and Women. * ‘Received Money’ = Only sold sex, ‘Paid’ = Only bought sex; ‘Received+Paid’ = Bought and sold sex.
Predictors of HIV infection among MSM in west-central India (Year 2011).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 1901 (41%) | 92 (4.8%) | Referent | |||
|
| 1452 (31%) | 97 (6.7%) | 1.4 (1.05, 1.9) | 0.023 | 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) | 0.011 | |
|
| 1329 (28%) | 103 (7.8%) | 1.7 (1.2, 2.2) | 0.001 | 1.9 (1.4, 2.6) | <0.01 | |
|
|
| 970/4639 (21%) | 42 (4.3%) | Referent | Referent | ||
|
| 2351/4639 (51%) | 188 (8.0%) | 1.9 (1.4, 2.7) | <0.01 | 1.8 (1.2, 2.7) | <0.01 | |
|
| 1318/4639 (28%) | 59 (4.5%) | 1.04 (0.7, 1.6) | 0.866 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.669 | |
|
|
| 2590/4650 (56%) | 181 (7.0%) | Referent | |||
|
| 2060/4650 (44%) | 110 (5.3%) | 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) | 0.022 | 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) | 0.015 | |
|
|
| 2381/4660 (51%) | 141 (5.9%) | Referent | |||
|
| 1229/4660 (26%) | 96 (7.8%) | 1.3 (1.03, 1.8) | 0.030 | 1.1 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.390 | |
|
| 605/4660 (13%) | 44 (7.3%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.8) | 0.219 | 1.5 (1.03, 2.2) | 0.033 | |
|
| 445/4660 (10%) | 10 (2.2%) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) | 0.002 | 0.32 (0.17, 0.62) | 0.001 | |
|
|
| 4692/4620 (99%) | 288 (6.3%) | Referent | |||
|
| 91/4620 (1%) | 2 (5.7%) | 0.9 (0.2, 3.8) | 0.890 | — | — | |
Note: Column 2: Denominators for percentages are respective figures in 1st column. OR: Odds Ratio; AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; IDU: Injecting Drug Use. * ‘Received Money’ = Only sold sex, ‘Paid’ = Only bought sex; ‘Received+Paid’ = Bought and sold sex.