| Literature DB >> 28886128 |
Ian W Holloway1, Dorian E Traube2, Sheree M Schrager3, Diane Tan4, Shannon Dunlap1, Michele D Kipke3.
Abstract
The present study addresses gaps in the literature related to theory development for young men who have sex with men (YMSM) sexual practices through the application and modification of Social Action Theory. Data come from the Healthy Young Men study (N = 526), which longitudinally tracked a diverse cohort of YMSM ages 18-24 to characterize risk and protective factors associated with drug use and sexual practices. Structural equation modeling examined the applicability of, and any necessary modifications to a YMSM-focused version of Social Action Theory. The final model displayed excellent fit (CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.037) and suggested concordance between social support and personal capacity for sexual health promotion. For YMSM, practicing health promotion and avoiding practices that may put them at risk for HIV was associated with both social isolation and psychological distress (β = -0.372, t = -4.601, p<0.001); psychological distress is an internalized response to environmental and cognitive factors and sexual practices are an externalized response. Results point to the utility of Social Action Theory as a useful model for understanding sexual practices among YMSM, the application of which shows health protective sexual practices are a function of sociocognitive factors that are influenced by environmental contexts. Social Action Theory can help prevention scientists better address the needs of this vulnerable population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28886128 PMCID: PMC5590937 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Application of Social Action Theory to sex risk for YMSM.
(*) Latent variable title used in current study to aid readability and conceptualization. Adapted from Ewart, 1991; Gore-Felton et al., 2005.
Descriptive statistics for observed and latent variables in the structural model.
| Variables | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| Age in years (range: 18–24) | 20.14 (1.58) |
| Residential status–live with family | 281 (53%) |
| Race/ethnicity: | |
| African American | 125 (24%) |
| Latino of Mexican descent | 205 (39%) |
| White | 195 (27%) |
| Sexual behavior: | |
| No partners | 86 (18%) |
| Protected AI | 216 (46%) |
| Single-partner seroconcordant UAI | 45 (10%) |
| Serodiscordant or multiple partners UAI | 125 (26%) |
| Action contexts | |
| Social/sexual racism (range: 1–4) | 1.64 (0.58) |
| Institutional racism (range: 1–4) | 1.45 (0.61) |
| History of witnessing physical abuse (binary) | 104 (20%) |
| History of experiencing physical abuse (binary) | 133 (25%) |
| Experiences of homophobia (range: 1–4) | 2.50 (1.17) |
| Health expectancies | |
| Low friends’ sexual/drug use practices (range: 1–4) | 3.14 (0.65) |
| Health values (range: 1–4) | 3.44 (0.56) |
| Low health risk expectancies (range: 1–5) | 3.97 (0.81) |
| Self-efficacy | |
| Self-efficacy for HIV prevention (range: 10–32) | 28.52 (3.79) |
| Protective strategies (range: 1–3) | 2.57 (0.44) |
| Social support | |
| Family support (range: 1–4) | 3.00 (0.71) |
| Friend support (range: 1–4) | 3.51 (0.51) |
| Family closeness (range: 0–4) | 3.21 (1.14) |
| Health protective behaviors | |
| Exercise (range: 1–8) | 3.81 (2.04) |
| Less cigarette smoking (range: 1–4) | 2.61 (1.16) |
| Psychological distress | |
| Depressive symptoms score (range: 0–54) | 15.04 (10.55) |
| Stressful life events (range: 0–21) | 6.53 (3.93) |
| Suicidality (binary) | 53 (10%) |
| Hopelessness (binary) | 160 (31%) |
*Variables are reverse coded so that higher values indicate health protective constructs.
Fig 2Social Action Theory variables predicting sexual risk among YMSM.
(ϯ) p < 0.10. (*) p < 0.05. (**) p < 0.01. (***) p < 0.01.