Ling-En Shi1, Chongyi Wei2, Willi McFarland2,3, Hongjing Yan1, Jianjun Li1, H Fisher Raymond2,3. 1. 1 Jiangsu Provincial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Nanjing, Jiangsu, China . 2. 2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California , San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. 3 San Francisco Department of Public Health , San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two common methods to sample men who have sex with men (MSM) for HIV research are venue- and internet-based approaches. However, it is unclear which is best to sample Chinese MSM. METHODS: We conducted side-by-side comparisons of time-location sampling (TLS) and an online sample of MSM in Nanjing, China. RESULTS: TLS-recruited MSM tended to be older and of lower socio-economic status compared to online-recruited MSM, whereas online-recruited MSM reported higher risk behavior and lower frequency of HIV testing. CONCLUSION: Significant differences were observed between the two separate samples. Without a gold standard, the choice of sampling method or recruitment approach should be guided by the segment of the population targeted to be reached.
PURPOSE: Two common methods to sample men who have sex with men (MSM) for HIV research are venue- and internet-based approaches. However, it is unclear which is best to sample Chinese MSM. METHODS: We conducted side-by-side comparisons of time-location sampling (TLS) and an online sample of MSM in Nanjing, China. RESULTS: TLS-recruited MSM tended to be older and of lower socio-economic status compared to online-recruited MSM, whereas online-recruited MSM reported higher risk behavior and lower frequency of HIV testing. CONCLUSION: Significant differences were observed between the two separate samples. Without a gold standard, the choice of sampling method or recruitment approach should be guided by the segment of the population targeted to be reached.
Entities:
Keywords:
China; men who have sex with men (MSM); sampling; time location sampling
Authors: Lei Zhang; Eric P F Chow; Jun Jing; Xun Zhuang; Xiaoshan Li; Meiqi He; Huamin Sun; Xiaoyan Li; Marelize Gorgens; David Wilson; Lan Wang; Wei Guo; Dongming Li; Yan Cui; Lu Wang; Ning Wang; Zunyou Wu; David P Wilson Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Nathan John Lachowsky; Allan Lal; Jamie I Forrest; Kiffer George Card; Zishan Cui; Paul Sereda; Ashleigh Rich; Henry Fisher Raymond; Eric A Roth; David M Moore; Robert S Hogg Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Eric William Hall; Travis H Sanchez; Aryeh D Stein; Rob Stephenson; Maria Zlotorzynska; Robert Craig Sineath; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: John Mark Wiginton; Sarah M Murray; Angel B Algarin; Stefan D Baral; Travis H Sanchez; Laramie R Smith Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 3.667