| Literature DB >> 27557857 |
R Colby Passaro1, Connie A Haley1,2, Hugo Sanchez3, Sten H Vermund1,4, Aaron M Kipp5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Peru (12.4 %) is 30 times higher than in the general adult population (0.4 %). It is critical for community-based organizations to understand how to provide HIV services to MSM while maximizing limited resources. This study describes the HIV prevalence and risk profiles of MSM seeking HIV services at a community-based organization in Lima, Peru. It then compares HIV prevalence between those who found out about the HIV services through different sources.Entities:
Keywords: Community organizations; Education and outreach; HIV; Marginalized populations; Public health; Resource-limited; Testing
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27557857 PMCID: PMC4997688 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3561-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics of MSM seeking HIV testing at a community-based organization in Lima, Peru, 2012–2013
| In person ( | Online ( | Sex Worker ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIV-positive, | 144 (15.9) | 97 (23.2) ** | 27 (19.3) ** |
| Age, median (IQR) | 25 (21–30) | 25 (22–30) | 24 (20–28) ** |
| Any previous HIV test, | 652 (71.9) | 316 (75.4) | 124 (88.6) ** |
| Sexual role in past 6 months, | |||
| No sex | 14 (1.5) | 4 (1.0) ** | 1 (0.7) ** |
| Penetrative | 263 (29.0) | 93 (22.2) ** | 6 (4.3) ** |
| Receptive | 197 (21.7) | 86 (20.5) ** | 69 (49.3) ** |
| Both receptive and penetrative | 433 (47.7) | 236 (56.3) ** | 64 (45.7) ** |
| 1 or more STI symptoms in past 6 monthsa, | 320 (35.3) | 243 (58.0) ** | 37 (26.4) ** |
| Number of sex partners in past 3 months, median (IQR) | 3 (1–5) | 2 (1–4) ** | 110 (30–250) ** |
| Gender of sex partners, | |||
| No partners in last 3 months | 69 (7.6) | 48 (11.5) ** | 0 (0) ** |
| Men only | 673 (74.2) | 337 (80.4) ** | 133 (95) ** |
| Men and women | 132 (14.6) | 14 (3.3) ** | 6 (4.3) ** |
| Women only | 13 (1.4) | 5 (1.2) ** | 0 (0) ** |
| Sex partner had STI, | 101 (11.1) | 40 (9.55) | 38 (27.1) ** |
| Consistency of condom use in past 3 monthsb, | |||
| 100 % condom use | 273 (30.1) | 138 (32.9) | 34 (24.3) ** |
| 50–99 % condom use | 230 (25.4) | 84 (20.0) | 94 (67.0) ** |
| 1–49 % condom use | 218 (24.0) | 106 (25.3) | 10 (7.1) ** |
| Never used condom | 186 (20.5) | 91 (21.7) | 2 (1.4) ** |
| Alcohol/drug use during sex in past 3 months, | 343 (37.8) | 121 (28.9) ** | 70 (50.0) ** |
| Exchanged money or goods for sex in past 3 months, | 172 (19.0) | 16 (3.82) ** | 138 (98.6) ** |
| Looked up STI information online in past 3 months, | 310 (34.2) | 219 (52.3) ** | 15 (10.7) ** |
| Used the Internet to look for sex in past 3 months, | 247 (27.2) | 160 (38.2) ** | 35 (25.0) |
| Sex with partner met on the Internet in past 3 months, | 263 (29.0) | 186 (44.4) ** | 35 (25.0) |
** p < 0.05 when compared to in-person group; chi-square for categorical variables; non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test for age and number of sexual partners
aAt least one of the following: Burning with urination, warts, secretion, or ulcers
bCalculated as the number of sexual encounters in which a condom was not used, divided by the total number sexual encounters
Crude and adjusted logistic regression models for the association between recruitment type and testing HIV positive at a community-based organization in Lima, Peru, 2012–2013
| Characteristic/Behavior | Crude | Adjusted | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORa | (95 % CI) | OR | (95 % CI) | OR | (95 % CI) | |
| In person | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Online | 1.60 | (1.20, 2.13) | 1.58 | (1.18, 2.13) | 1.61 | (1.19, 2.18) |
| Sex Worker | 1.27 | (0.80, 2.00) | 1.12 | (0.68, 1.84) | 1.12 | (0.68, 1.86) |
| Age | 1.01 | (0.99, 1.02) | 1.01 | (0.99, 1.03) | 1.01 | (0.99, 1.03) |
| Any previous HIV testb | 0.70 | (0.52, 0.93) | 0.62 | (0.45, 0.84) | 0.62 | (0.45, 0.85) |
| Sexual Role in past 6 months | ||||||
| Penetrative | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Both receptive and penetrative | 2.13 | (1.44, 3.14) | 2.08 | (1.40, 3.08) | 2.09 | (1.40, 3.10) |
| Receptive | 1.78 | (1.14, 2.78) | 1.67 | (1.06, 2.63) | 1.66 | (1.05, 2.62) |
| No sex | 1.42 | (0.46, 4.33) | 1.31 | (0.43, 4.04) | 1.34 | (0.43, 4.14) |
| Consistency of condom use in past 3 monthsc | ||||||
| 100 % condom use | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| 50–99 % condom use | 1.09 | (0.77, 1.55) | 1.09 | (0.75, 1.58) | 1.09 | (0.75, 1.59) |
| 1–49 % condom use | 1.07 | (0.74, 1.55) | 1.00 | (0.68, 1.46) | 0.96 | (0.66, 1.41) |
| Never used condom | 1.05 | (0.71, 1.55) | 0.97 | (0.65, 1.46) | 0.95 | (0.63, 1.43) |
| Alcohol/drug use during sex in past 3 months | 1.13 | (0.86, 1.49) | 1.16 | (0.87, 1.55) | 1.18 | (0.89, 1.57) |
| Sex partner had STI in past 3 months | 1.24 | (0.84, 1.82) | 1.27 | (0.85, 1.91) | 1.25 | (0.83, 1.88) |
| Looked up STI information online in past 3 months | 0.97 | (0.73, 1.29) | 0.68 | (0.42, 1.08) | ||
| Used the internet to look for sex in past 3 months | 1.16 | (0.88, 1.51) | 1.09 | (0.80, 1.50) | ||
| Sex with partner met on the internet in past 3 months | 1.09 | (0.82, 1.46) | 1.28 | (0.80, 2.06) | ||
aThe reported crude odds ratios (ORs) represent a series of individual logistic regressions depicting the relationships between the risk factors and the outcome variable (HIV status), i.e., models with only one risk factor being analyzed
bResponding “No” to the dichotomous variables is the referent group
cCalculated as the number of sexual encounters in which a condom was not used, divided by the total number sexual encounters