| Literature DB >> 29853441 |
Angel B Algarin1, Patrick J Ward2, W Jay Christian2, Abby E Rudolph3, Ian W Holloway4, April M Young2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geosocial networking apps have made sexual partner-seeking easier for men who have sex with men, raising both challenges and opportunities for human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted infection prevention and research. Most studies on men who have sex with men geosocial networking app use have been conducted in large urban areas, despite research indicating similar patterns of online- and app-based sex-seeking among men who have sex with men in rural and midsize cities.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; men who have sex with men; mobile phone; public health; sexually transmitted diseases; social environment
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29853441 PMCID: PMC6002670 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Data collection points with 1-mile coverage buffers.
Figure 2Empirical Bayesian kriging analysis of the estimated spatial distribution of geosocial networking app users by time and app.
Figure 3Maps displaying temporal (weekday day-weekend night) differences in the spatial distribution of app users.
Descriptive statistics of estimated average number of geosocial networking app users per Census block group.
| App and time of day | Weekday day, median (Q1,Q3) | Weekend night, median (Q1,Q3) | ||
| App 1 | 10.0 (4.0,15.0) | 10.0 (3.0,17.0) | .95 | |
| App 2 | 2.0 (1.0,4.0) | 1.0 (0.0,5.0) | .39 | |
| App 3 | 10.5 (3.0,18.5) | 9.0 (4.0,18.0) | .65 | |
| App 1 vs App 2 (refa) | 7.0 (3.0,11.0) | — | <.001b | |
| App 2 vs App 3 (ref) | –8.0 (–14.0,–2.0) | — | <.001b | |
| App 1 vs App 3 (ref) | 0.0 (–3.0,2.0) | — | .46 | |
| App 1 vs App 2 (ref) | — | 7.0 (2.0,14.0) | <.001b | |
| App 2 vs App 3 (ref) | — | –7.0 (–14.0,–3.0) | <.001b | |
| App 1 vs App 3 (ref) | — | –1.0 (–3.0,2.5) | .46 | |
aRef: reference group.
bIndicates significant difference between apps.
Unadjusted analysis of the association between Census block level characteristics and number of geosocial networking app–using men who have sex with men.
| Parameters | Crude incidence rate ratio (95% CI) | ||
| Age, year, median | 0.99 (0.97-1.00) | .03 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.98-0.99) | <.001 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.01 (1.00-1.03) | .20 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.92 (0.91-0.94) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.24 (1.82-2.75) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 0.97 (0.96-0.99) | <.001 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | .01 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.02) | .93 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.93 (0.92-0.95) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.02 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.06 (1.64-2.58) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 0.98 (0.97-0.99) | .003 | |
| White (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.00) | .13 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.01) | .99 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.93 (0.91-0.94) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.28 (1.89-2.73) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 0.97 (0.95-0.99) | .002 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | .001 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.00 (0.97-1.08) | .65 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.91 (0.89-0.94) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.02 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.88 (2.13-3.91) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 0.98 (0.97-1.00) | .01 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.99-1.00) | .049 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.02) | .58 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.94 (0.93-0.96) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.12 (1.67-2.68) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 0.98 (0.97-0.99) | .001 | |
| White (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.00) | .07 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.02) | .61 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.94 (0.93-0.96) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.01-1.02) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 2.26 (1.85-2.76) | <.001 | |
Multivariable analysis of the association between Census block level characteristics and number of geosocial networking app–using men who have sex with men.
| Parameters | Adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI) | ||
| Age, year, median | 1.03 (1.01-1.04) | <.001 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.99-1.00) | .03 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | .01 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.93 (0.91-0.95) | .001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.00 (1.00-1.01) | .04 | |
| Business zoning | 1.69 (1.43-2.00) | .001 | |
| Age, year, median | 1.01 (0.99-1.02) | .46 | |
| White (%) | 1.00 (0.99-1.00) | .29 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.98 (0.97-0.99) | <.001 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.94 (0.92-0.96) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | <.001 | |
| Business zoning | 1.56 (1.28-1.92) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 1.01 (1.00-1.03) | .06 | |
| White (%) | 1.00 (1.00-1.01) | .47 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.98 (0.97-0.99) | .003 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.94 (0.91-0.96) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | .01 | |
| Business zoning | 1.77 (1.47-2.13) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 1.01 (0.99-1.03) | .36 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | .02 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.96 (0.95-0.98) | <.001 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.93 (0.90-0.97) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | .045 | |
| Business zoning | 2.22 (1.67-2.93) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 1.01 (100-1.03) | .11 | |
| White (%) | 0.99 (0.99-1.01) | .64 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.99 (0.97-1.00) | .045 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.95 (0.93-1.00) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | .01 | |
| Business zoning | 1.77 (1.41-2.21) | <.001 | |
| Age, year, median | 1.01 (0.99-1.02) | .25 | |
| White (%) | 1.00 (1.00-1.01) | .77 | |
| Hispanic (%) | 0.99 (0.98-1.00) | .02 | |
| Median household income (per $5,000) | 0.95 (0.93-1.00) | <.001 | |
| Population (100 per mi2) | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | .03 | |
| Business zoning | 1.85 (1.53-2.24) | <.001 | |