Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Drug use during sex, 'chemsex', is common among men who have sex with men (MSM) and related to sexual and mental health harms. This study assessed associations between chemsex and a wide range of determinants among MSM visiting STI clinics to increase understanding of characteristics and beliefs of MSM practicing chemsex.
METHODS: In 2018, 785 MSM were recruited at nine Dutch STI clinics; 368 (47%) fully completed the online questionnaire. All participants reported to have had sex in the past six months. Chemsex was defined as using cocaine, crystal meth, designer drugs, GHB/GBL, ketamine, speed or XTC/MDMA during sex in the past six months. Associations between chemsex and psychosocial determinants, socio-demographics, sexual behaviour and using tobacco or alcohol were assessed by multivariable logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Chemsex was reported by 44% of MSM (161/368) and was not associated with socio-demographics. Independent determinants were 'believing that the majority of friends/sex partners use drugs during sex' (descriptive norm) (aOR: 1.95, 95%CI: 1.43-2.65), 'believing that sex is more fun when using drugs' (attitude) (aOR: 2.06, 95%CI: 1.50-2.84), using tobacco (aOR: 2.65, 95%CI: 1.32-5.32), multiple sex partners (aOR: 2.69, 95%CI: 1.21-6.00), group sex (aOR: 4.65, 95%CI: 1.54-14.05) and using online dating platforms (aOR: 2.73, 95%CI: 1.13-6.62).
CONCLUSION: MSM are likely to find themselves in distinct social networks where it is the norm to use drugs when having sex and pleasure is linked to chemsex. Health services should acknowledge the social influence and pleasurable experiences to increase acceptability of strategies aimed at minimizing the possible harms of chemsex.

Introduction

Drug use during sex, or ‘chemsex’, is a well-documented behaviour among men who have sex with men (MSM) [1,2]. The main type of drugs described in chemsex are drugs that stimulate sexual desire, such as crystal methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GBH)/gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), mephedrone, ecstasy (XTC) and ketamine [3,4]. A systematic review that included studies from Europe, Australia, and the United States of America, demonstrated that the proportion of MSM practicing chemsex ranged from 17% to 27% among MSM attending STI clinics in large cities [1]. A recent study by our research group showed that chemsex was also common practice among MSM living outside large cities in the Netherlands (36%) [5].

The upsides of chemsex that have been described for MSM are various and include the enhancement of sexual desire [6,7]. Chemsex has been associated with greater sexual satisfaction, but lower life satisfaction [8]. Chemsex has been associated with several adverse sexual and mental health outcomes. For example, chemsex has been associated with an increased risk of condomless anal intercourse [9-12], acquisition of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) [10,13,14] and anxiety and depression when the use was considered dependent [15].

Considering that chemsex is common among MSM and associated with health harms, health promotion strategies aimed at minimizing these harms, such as STI control strategies and safer drug use (harm reduction) strategies are important in this group. An understanding of the characteristics and beliefs associated with chemsex is needed to identify MSM practicing chemsex in health care and tailor health promotion strategies to their beliefs. Previous data on associations between chemsex and socio-demographics, i.e. age, ethnicity and educational level, have been inconsistent [1,8,14,16-18]. Concerning the use of other substances, tobacco use has been associated with chemsex, but no association has been found between regular alcohol consumption and chemsex [14,15]. Sexual risk behaviour, i.e. multiple sex partners, casual sex partners, group sex, and fisting, has been associated with chemsex [8,10,13,18-20]. A few studies have assessed associations between chemsex and psychosocial determinants from common behaviour-oriented theories (e.g. Theory of Planned Behaviour, Health Belief Model, Social Norms Theory). Lower perception of risk, or ‘risk perception’ [21], was associated with drug use and regular drug use in MSM [22]. A more favourable appraisal, or ‘attitude’ [23], towards drug use among lesbian, gay and bisexual people helped to explain the higher use of drugs compared to heterosexuals [24]. Acceptability of drug use among the social environment, or the ‘subjective norm’ [25], was positively associated with drug use in MSM [22]. Believing that most people in the social environment practice chemsex, or the ‘descriptive norm’, was also related to chemsex among MSM in a qualitative study [19]. Adequate ability to refuse drugs and confidence in this ability, or ‘refusal skills and self-efficacy’ [26], were associated with less drug use among MSM [27]. Finally, a qualitative study found that drug use could be the result of a learned automatic response, or ‘habit’ [28], to sex for some MSM [29].

Most studies focused on a particular set of determinants. Only one quantitative study [22] assessed a broad framework of the above described psychosocial determinants, socio-demographics and sexual risk behaviour in relation with drug use among MSM. However, this study [22] assessed determinants of drug use in general, and these determinants might differ for chemsex. Therefore, to explore characteristics and beliefs of MSM practicing chemsex, in the present quantitative study, we developed a comprehensive framework including psychosocial determinants, socio-demographics, tobacco and alcohol use, and sexual behaviour possibly associated with chemsex (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Conceptual framework to explain the use of drugs during sex (chemsex) in men who have sex with men attending Dutch sexually transmitted infection clinics.

Methods and materials

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University of Maastricht (METC 2018–0485). STI client registry data was collected within standard care. During recruitment, STI nurses provided information on the study and participants gave oral informed consent to be approached for the online questionnaire and this was registered in the STI client registry. Participants gave written informed consent at the beginning of the questionnaire (S1 File). Data from questionnaires and linkage to data from medical records were retrieved in a coded de-identified manner.

Study design

The outpatient Public Health Service STI clinics in the Netherlands offer free and anonymous STI and HIV testing, hepatitis B vaccinations, and sexual health counselling for risk groups, such as MSM. Of all unique clients visiting any STI clinic in the Netherlands in 2018 (111,271), 27% (29,531) were MSM [30]. MSM was defined as a man who reported having sex with a man in the preceding six months. Nurses of nine STI clinics in the Netherlands (list of participating STI clinics in S2 File) were instructed to recruit MSM aged 16 years or older during their STI consultations for participation in an online questionnaire (S3 File) on drug use; it was explicitly instructed to include MSM regardless of their drug use (yes or no) behaviour. Convenience sampling was used for recruitment. The recruitment period was three months in 2018 for all participating STI clinics.

Procedures

All STI consultations included a standardized nurse-taken medical and sexual history, including socio-demographics and sexual behaviour in the past six months. These data were registered in an electronic patient registry. Up to one week after the STI consultation, the questionnaire was sent by email to all MSM who had agreed to participate in the study. It was made clear that the questionnaire was intended for MSM regardless whether they used drugs or not in the past six months. The questionnaire included questions on drug use during sex, sexual behaviour, alcohol and tobacco use, and psychosocial determinants. Questionnaire data were linked to electronic patient registry data using the consultation code.

Outcome

The outcome in this study was chemsex, the use of drugs before or during sex, in the past six months. Crystal meth, cocaine, designer drugs (2-CB, 3 MMC, 4-FA, 4-MEC), GHB, GBL, ketamine, MDMA, mephedrone, speed, and XTC were included in this definition. Alcohol and cannabis are generally excluded from the chemsex definition because of their common use in a recreational context. Poppers are used during sex by MSM, but only using poppers during sex is normally not classified as chemsex in previous literature [3,9-11,13].

Determinants

Socio-demographics

Age, four-digit postal codes, educational level, and ethnicity were available from the coded electronic patient registry. Socioeconomic status (SES) scores based on income, educational level and employment were extracted from the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (http://www.scp.nl) per four-digit postal code area. Postal codes were also used to calculate urbanization (www.//cbs.nl), urbanization was categorized into urban (≥1500 addresses/m2) and non-urban (<1500 addresses/ m2). Categories for educational level (practical, theoretical) and ethnicity (western, non-western) were based on the definitions used by the Central Bureau of Statistics (www.//cbs.nl).

Substance use

Frequency of alcohol consumption was coded into at least two times per week and four times per month or less. Tobacco use was measured as current smoking (yes or no).

Sexual behavior

Number of sex partners in the past six months, bisexual behaviour (yes, no), and HIV status were available from the coded electronic patient registry. Type of sex partners was categorized into having sex with a steady partner, if participants reported only having sex with a steady partner, and having sex with casual partner(s), if participants reported having sex with other than steady partners (as well). Sex at the party scene included having reported to have sex at sex parties, darkrooms, or after parties. The use of online dating platforms included having reported to use dating apps or websites to find sex partners.

Psychosocial determinants

The chosen list of items measuring the psychosocial determinants included a range of beliefs about the risks, advantages, social environment, refusal skills and habitual thoughts. The two items for descriptive norm had Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.8 and were combined in a mean score (Table 1).

Table 1

Measurement of psychosocial determinants.

Determinants	Questions	Answering scale	Answering options	Interpretation	Items	Internal consistency
Risk perception	I think that I am more at risk of acquiring an STI when I use drugs during sex	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates having a higher risk perception of the consequences of chemsex	1	NA
Attitude	I think that I can enjoy sex more when I use drugs	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates a more positive attitude towards chemsex	2	0.38
	I think that my fear of acquiring an STI decreases when I use drugs during sex
Subjective norm	My friends consider using drugs during sex to be a fun thing to do	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates that chemsex is more considered to be a fun thing to do	1	NA
Descriptive norm	How many of your friends use drugs during sex?	Five-point Likert Scale	No one–everyone	A higher score indicates that more friends use drugs during sex	2	0.83
	How many of your sex partners use drugs during sex?
Peer pressure	I sometimes experience pressure from my friends or sex partners to use drugs during sex	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates more peer pressure	1	NA
Refusal skills & self-efficacy	I know how to refuse drugs during sex if I do not want to use them	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates more refusal skills & self-efficacy	2	0.61
	I manage to say no to friends or sex partners who offer me drugs during sex
Habit	I automatically think about drugs when having sex	Five-point Likert Scale	Totally disagree–totally agree	A higher score indicates a more habitual thought	1	NA

NA: Not applicable.

Statistical analyses

Participants were defined as all MSM who fully completed the questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were used to calculate the proportion of participants reporting chemsex and proportions of participants reporting specific psychosocial beliefs about chemsex. We then assessed determinants for chemsex. We started with comparing socio-demographics, alcohol/tobacco use, sexual behaviour, and psychosocial determinants between MSM practicing chemsex and MSM not practicing chemsex using chi-square tests and t-tests (for continuous variables). Associations between chemsex and all variables were then assessed using univariable logistic regression analyses. Then, we built a multivariable four-step hierarchical regression model. The four blocks consisted of variables that were significantly (p<0.05) associated with chemsex in univariable analyses (as shown in Table 2). In the first step, sociodemographics were entered (block 1). In the second step, tobacco/alcohol use variables were entered (block 2). In the third step, sexual behaviour variables were entered (block 3). Finally, psychosocial determinants were entered in the regression model (block 4). No variables were removed during the steps. For each block, the explained variance was described. The order of block-entry was based on previous literature (as described in Fig 1), known categories of variables associated with chemsex were entered first and the new category of variables, i.e. psychosocial determinants, were entered in the final step. As this study concerns an exploratory study, we did not adjust for multiple comparisons. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24.

Table 2

Characteristics of study population and univariable analyses of associations between chemsex and sociodemographics, alcohol/tobacco use, sexual behaviour and psychosocial determinants.

	All participants (N = 368)	Chemsex MSM (N = 161)	No chemsex MSM (N = 207)	Outcome: chemsex
	% of total (N) or mean ± SD	% within groups (N) or mean ± SD	% within groups (N) or mean ± SD	OR (95% CI)
Sociodemographics
Age	40.6 ± 13.6	43 ± 12	38 ± 14	1.03 (1.01–1.04)**
Ethnicity
Western	92.9 (342)	43.6 (149)	56.4 (193)	1
Non-western	7.1 (26)	46.2 (12)	53.8 (14)	1.11 (0.50–2.47)
SES†
Low	33.4 (123)	48.8 (60)	51.2 (63)	1
Middle	32.6 (120)	35.0 (42)	65.0 (78)	0.57 (0.34–0.95)*
High	34.0 (125)	47.2 (59)	52.8 (66)	0.94 (0.57–1.55)
Educational level
Practical	35.1 (129)	47.3 (61)	52.7 (68)	1
Theoretical	64.9 (239)	41.8 (100)	58.2 (139)	0.80 (0.52–1.23)
Urbanization
Non-urban	44.8 (165)	40.6 (67)	59.4 (98)	1
Urban	55.2 (203)	46.3 (94)	53.7 (109)	1.26 (0.83–1.91)
Alcohol/tobacco use
Tobacco smoking
No	62.2 (229)	56.8 (79)	43.2 (60)	1
Yes	37.8 (139)	35.8 (82)	64.2 (147)	2.36 (1.53–3.63)***
Regular alcohol consumption
No	52.7 (194)	43.7 (76)	56.3 (98)	1
Yes	47.3 (174)_	43.8 (85)	56.2 (109)	0.99 (0.66–1.50)
Sexual behaviour
Same-sex sexual behaviour
Only men	89.9 (331)	41.7 (138)	58.3 (193)	1
Men and women	10.1 (37)	62.2 (23)	37.8 (14)	2.30 (1.14–4.62)*
Type of sex partner(s)
Steady	20.7 (76)	34.2 (26)	65.8 (50)	1
Casual	79.3 (292)	46.2 (135)	53.8 (157)	1.65 (0.98–2.80)
Number of sex partners past six months
<5	38.3 (141)	26.2 (37)	73.8 (104)	1
5–10	39.4 (145)	52.4 (76)	47.6 (69)	3.10 (1.88–5.09)***
>10	22.3 (82)	58.5 (48)	41.5 (34)	3.97 (2.23–7.07) ***
Number of sex partners during sex
1	67.1 (247)	30.0 (74)	70.0 (173)	1
2–3	22.3 (82)	73.2 (60)	26.8 (22)	6.38 (3.65–11.15)***
>3	10.6 (39)	69.2 (27)	30.8 (12)	5.26 (2.53–10.94)***
Group sex
No	81.8 (301)	34.9 (105)	65.1 (196)	1
Yes	18.2 (67)	83.6 (56))	16.4 (11)	9.50 (4.77–18.92)***
Fisting
No	91.0 (335)	39.7 (133)	60.3 (202)	1
Yes	9.0 (33)	84.8 (28)	15.2 (2)	8.51 (3.20–22.58)***
Sex at the party scene
No	74.5 (274)	35.4 (97)	64.5 (177)	1
Yes	25.5 (94)	68.1 (64)	31.9 (30)	3.89 (2.36–6.41)***
Use of online dating platforms
No	22.0 (81)	28.4 (23)	71.6 (58)	1
Yes	78.0 (287)	48.1 (138)	51.9 (149)	2.34 (1.37–3.99)**
Known positive HIV status
No	89.7 (330)	39.7 (131)	60.3 (199)	1
Yes	10.3 (38)	78.9 (30)	21.1 (8)	5.70 (2.53–12.81)***
Psychosocial determinants‡
Risk perception	3.5 ± 1.2	3.5 ± 1.2	3.5 ± 1.2	0.97 (0.81–1.15)
Attitude (enjoyment) §	2.9 ± 1.2	3.9 ± 1.1	2.2 ± 1.2	3.45 (2.68–4.44)***
Attitude (decreased STI anxiety) ¶	2.3 ± 1.1	2.4 ± 1.2	2.2 ± 1.2	1.19 (1.00–1.42)
Refusal skills	4.5 ± 0.9	4.5 ± 1.0	4.6 ± 0.8	0.74 (0.68–0.95)*
Refusal self-efficacy	4.4 ± 1.0	4.3 ± 1.0	4.5 ± 1.0	0.86 (0.70–1.05)
Subjective norm	3.2 ± 1.1	3.7 ± 0.9	2.8 ± 1.1	2.66 (2.05–3.44)***
Descriptive norm	2.6 ± 1.5	3.7 ± 1.2	1.8 ± 1.1	3.07 (2.48–3.80)***
Peer pressure	1.6 ± 1.0	1.7 ± 1.0	1.6 ± 0.9	1.19 (0.96–1.47)
Habit	1.7 ± 1.0	2.2 ± 1.2	1.3 ± 0.7	2.96 (2.20–3.98)***

AOR, adjusted odds ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals.

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

†Based on tertile distributions

‡Scale 1 (totally disagree)– 5 (totally agree).

§Item: I think that I can enjoy sex more when I use drugs.

¶ Item: I think that my fear of acquiring an STI decreases when I use drugs during sex.

Results

Study population

A total of 785 MSM were recruited to participate during the study period and 368 (47%) fully completed the questionnaire. Participants had a median age of 40 years (IQR 32–47), 65% was higher educated and 93% had a western nationality. The median number of sex partners in the preceding six months was 6 (IQR: 4–10). Chemsex in the past six months was reported by 44% (161/368) of participants, of whom 47% had chemsex in the last week. Among participants practicing chemsex, the most common drugs used were XTC/MDMA (85%), GHB/GBL (78%), and ketamine (43%). Crystal meth was reported by 9% and mephedrone by 4%. The use of four or more different drugs in the past six months was reported by 42% of MSM practicing chemsex. Combining different drugs during one chemsex session was reported by 81%; XTC/MDMA and GHB/GBL was the most reported combination (75%). Intravenous injection of drugs was reported by 4%. Among all participants, tobacco use was reported by 38% and regular alcohol consumption by 47%. The majority reported to have sex with casual partners (79%) and used online dating platforms for sex (78%). In general, participants reported to be aware of the STI risks of chemsex (median risk perception: 3.5), managed to refuse drugs during sex, (median refusal self-efficacy: 4.4), and did not experience peer pressure to use drugs during sex (median peer pressure: 1.6). Fig 2 describes the proportions for the specific categories of psychosocial items.

Fig 2

Proportions of all MSM, MSM who had chemsex, MSM who did not have chemsex reporting specific psychosocial beliefs about chemsex.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 indicate significant differences between chemsex-MSM and non-chemsex MSM. †Different answering options: No one–everyone.

Determinants associated with chemsex: Univariable analyses

MSM who reported chemsex more often believed that they could enjoy sex more when using drugs (mean attitude 3.9 vs. 2.2, p<0.001), felt less skilled to refuse drugs (mean refusal skills: 4.5 vs. 4.6, p = 0.02), perceived greater acceptance (mean subjective norm: 3.7 vs. 2.8, p<0.001) and performance (mean descriptive norm: 3.7 vs. 2.8, p<0.001) of chemsex among their social environment, and scored higher on automatically thinking about drugs when having sex (mean habitual thought: 2.2 vs. 1.3, p<0.001) compared to MSM who did not report chemsex. Table 2 shows all other variables that were significantly associated with chemsex in univariable analyses.

Determinants associated with chemsex: Multivariable analysis

Socio-demographics accounted for 6% of the variance in chemsex with age and SES being independently associated. The inclusion of tobacco use significantly increased the variance accounted for in chemsex (ΔR = 0.06, p<0.001); the model explained 13% of the variance in chemsex; tobacco use remained associated. Entry of the sexual behaviour variables significantly increased the variance accounted for (ΔR = 0.33, p<0.001); the model explained 45% of the variance in chemsex; independently associated were the number of sex partners, group sex and/or fisting, and using online dating platforms for sex. Finally, inclusion of psychosocial determinants significantly increased the variance accounted for in chemsex (ΔR = 0.23, p<0.001); the final model explained 69% of the variance. Variables that remained associated with chemsex in the final multivariable model were attitude and the descriptive norm, tobacco use, multiple sex partners, group sex, and using online dating platforms for sex (Table 3).

Table 3

Four-step hierarchical regression analysis assessing the impact of categories of determinants on the prediction of chemsex.

		Step 1		Step 2		Step 3		Step 4
Step	Variables entered	aOR	95% CI	aOR	95% CI	aOR	95% CI	aOR	95% CI
1	Age	1.03**	1.01–1.05	1.03***	1.02–1.05	1.02	0.99–1.04	1.01	0.98–1.04
	SES, middle	0.53*	0.31–0.90	0.57*	0.33–0.97	0.61	0.31–1.18	0.78	0.34–1.78
	SES, high	0.83	0.50–1.38	0.81	0.48–1.37	0.72	0.38–1.39	0.90	0.40–2.03
2	Tobacco smoking, yes			2.62***	1.67–4.12	2.61**	1.51–4.50	2.65**	1.32–5.32
3	Same-sex sexual behaviour, men and women					2.04	0.82–5.10	1.92	0.60–6.18
	Number of sex partners six months, 5–10					2.49**	1.35–4.61	2.69*	1.21–6.00
	Number of sex partners six months, > 10					1.65	0.76–3.63	1.52	0.54–4.22
	Number of sex partners during sex, 2 or 3					3.52***	1.73–7.15	1.58	0.64–3.91
	Number of sex partners during sex, > 4					1.07	0.40–2.90	0.40	0.12–1.51
	Group sex, yes					5.07**	2.02–12.74	4.65**	1.54–14.05
	Fisting, yes					6.53**	2.04–20.89	2.74	0.70–10.65
	Sex at the party scene, yes					1.72	0.83–3.58	1.20	0.46–3.15
	HIV status, positive					2.95*	1.05–8.32	2.45	0.67–9.00
	Use of online platforms for sex, yes					3.10**	1.51–6.38	2.73*	1.13–6.62
4	Refusal skills							0.74	0.50–1.09
	Attitude (enjoyment)†							2.06***	1.50–2.84
	Subjective norm							1.05	0.70–1.56
	Descriptive norm							1.95***	1.43–2.65
	Habit							1.17	0.78–1.76
R2		0.064		0.125		0.452		0.685
ΔR2		0.064***		0.061***		0.327***		0.233***

AOR, adjusted odds ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals.

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

***p < 0.001.

†Item: I think that I can enjoy sex more when I use drugs.

Discussion

This is one of the first quantitative studies that explored a broad set of psychosocial, sociodemographic and sexual behavioural determinants for its association with chemsex among MSM. Chemsex was a prevalent behaviour (44% recent practice) in MSM who visited STI clinics in the Netherlands. XTC/MDMA, GHB/GBL and ketamine were the most used drugs during sex. Chemsex was independently associated with believing that the majority of friends and sex partners use drugs during sex (descriptive norm) and believing that sex is more fun when using drugs (attitude). Other determinants were smoking tobacco, having at least five sex partners in the past six months, having group sex and/or fisting, and using online dating platforms. Our conceptual model that included these determinants was able to explain almost seventy percent of the variance in chemsex with psychosocial and sexual behaviour determinants as most important.

In line with previous studies [13,19,20], chemsex was associated with sexual risk behaviour, such as having multiple sex partners and group sex. In addition, we found an independent association between chemsex and smoking tobacco, which was also present in two other studies [14,16]. In the long term, a study has shown that MSM practicing chemsex might be at risk of becoming drug dependent and not being able to return to enjoying sex without chemsex drugs [31]. The risk of dependency might vary per drugs used. For example, crystal meth and GHB/GBL are relatively more likely to cause physical addiction than other drugs [32]. Irrespective of causality, the presence of sexual health risks and possible drug and tobacco use related harms in MSM practicing chemsex confirms the importance of health promotion strategies aimed at minimizing these harms. To identify MSM practicing chemsex in health care and tailor health promotion strategies, it is important to understand their characteristics and beliefs. Our study indicates that MSM practicing chemsex are a heterogeneous group, as chemsex was comparably present in MSM of different age groups, socioeconomic statuses, ethnicities, educational levels and in MSM living in urban and non-urban areas. One study [14] found no differences by educational level, SES, and ethnicity between MSM practicing chemsex and MSM not practicing chemsex. A systematic review [1] found that chemsex participation peaks between the age mid-thirties and early fourties, but is evident at all ages, which was consistent with our study. This suggests that health services, such as STI clinics, should ask about chemsex in all MSM.

In general, MSM practicing chemsex reported to be aware of the STI risks related to drug use during sex and this risk perception did not differ between MSM practicing chemsex and MSM not practicing chemsex. Almost eighty percent reported that they believed to be more at risk of acquiring an STI when using drugs during sex. Nevertheless, MSM practicing chemsex engage more often in sexual risk behaviour and are more often diagnosed with an STI than MSM not practicing chemsex [10,13,14]. This suggests that men practicing chemsex are not naïve to the STI risks of chemsex, but possible lack understanding of how to manage them. Therefore, promoting STI preventive measures, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection and correct condom use, remains highly relevant in this group. A vast majority of MSM practicing chemsex indicated that they had the skills and self-efficacy to refuse drugs during sex when they not want to use them and did not experience peer pressure. Nevertheless, the social environment seems to play an important role in chemsex. Our study shows that MSM practicing chemsex think that the majority of their friends and sex partners also use drugs during sex while MSM not practicing chemsex think that only a minority use drugs during sex. The descriptive norm was independently associated with chemsex. A previous qualitative study also showed that chemsex was perceived as a normalized behaviour among MSM practicing chemsex in South London [19]. It has been suggested [19] that the proportion of MSM practicing chemsex is overestimated by men who practice chemsex. According to the social influence theory, believing that most people in one’s social environment perform a certain behaviour can stimulate individuals to practice these behaviours themselves [33]. Another explanation could be provided by the social selection theory. This theory describes that an individual practicing a certain behaviour would change networks to spend more time with others who also practice the same behaviour. A social network approach would be necessary to assess the direction of social influence. Regardless of the direction, it is likely that MSM practicing chemsex operate within a distinct social network where drug use during sex is normalized [34]. Our study shows that the use of online dating platforms for sex is also independently associated with chemsex. Online dating platforms makes it easier to have chemsex at private settings [35]. The use of certain symbols indicating drug use in personal advertisements in these dating platforms [36] probably stimulates selection of sex partners who also use drugs and increases perceptions of ubiquity of chemsex.

A second psychosocial determinant independently associated with chemsex was a positive attitude towards drug use during sex. MSM practicing chemsex more often believed they could enjoy sex more when using drugs. Drugs are often used to enhance sexual pleasure [6,7], but when sex without drugs is not experienced as pleasurable anymore men face a risk of becoming drug dependent. One study [6] already described that the pleasurable sensations of chemsex form a positive association between drugs and sex that then provides the automatic and reflective motivation to combine sex and drugs in the future. In our study, almost one in five men practicing chemsex reported to automatically think about drugs when having sex. Health care services should pay attention to men whose chemsex behaviour has become an habit to prevent future possible addiction problems. When minimizing the possible harms of chemsex, such as STIs and addiction, health care services should acknowledge the social influence and pleasurable experiences of chemsex to increase acceptability of these strategies.

Limitations

Our study should be viewed in light of some limitations. Because of the cross-sectional design, we were unable to assess causal relationships between determinants and chemsex. The questionnaire was completed by high-risk MSM, because they were recruited at the STI clinic and participants relatively had more sex partners than the total MSM population (n = 3493) who visited the participating STI clinics during the study period (median 6 vs. 5, p = 0.02). This could have led to an overestimation of the proportion of MSM practicing chemsex but enabled us to assess determinants associated with chemsex. Furthermore, MSM with a younger age (median age 40 vs. 34 years, p<0.001) and a non-western ethnicity (7% vs. 18%, p<0.001) were underrepresented in our study. Ideally, the psychosocial determinants (especially concerning habit formation) would have been measured by multiple validated items. We wanted to increase the response rate by limiting the items in our questionnaire. That is also the reason why more complex items that have been associated with chemsex in a previous study [29], such as internalized homophobia and minority stress, were not measured in our questionnaire. Furthermore, recall bias and under-reporting bias on some psychosocial beliefs, such as experienced peer pressure to use drugs during sex, could have been possible. Finally, multiple comparisons might have increased risk for type 1 errors. Yet, for exploratory studies, correcting multiple comparisons is often a too strict approach (leading to more type II errors) and a flexible approach, as we took in our study, is deemed more suitable [37].

Conclusion

Our study shows that MSM practicing chemsex are a heterogeneous group concerning sociodemographic characteristics. STI risk factors, such as having multiple sex partners and group sex, and smoking tobacco were independently associated with chemsex, indicating a need for health promotion in MSM practicing chemsex. MSM practicing chemsex generally believed that the majority of their friends or sex partners also used drugs during sex and this was independently associated with chemsex. This suggests that MSM practicing chemsex are likely to find themselves in distinct social and sexual networks where it is the norm to use drugs when having sex. MSM practicing chemsex generally believed that sex with drugs is more fun and this was also independently associated with chemsex. Health services should acknowledge the social influence and pleasurable experiences to increase acceptability of strategies aimed at minimizing the possible harms of chemsex, such as STIs and addiction.

Informed consent in Dutch and English.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

List of participating STI clinics.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Online questionnaire in Dutch and English.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-31468

Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs Evers,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

From my own reading of the manuscript, I agree with the reviewer’s comments. Please carefully consider their suggestions. I look forward to receiving your revision.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 05 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ethan Morgan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please refer to any sample size calculations or post-hoc corrections to correct for multiple comparisons during your statistical analyses. If these were not performed please justify the reasons. Please refer to our statistical reporting guidelines for assistance (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting).

3.  Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

4.  Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. In addition, please include details of any pretesting of this questionnaire, including the number and nature of the participants.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Thank you for your attention to these queries.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses an important subject: the association between drug use for sexual pleasure and HIV infection among men who have sex with men. The paper is reasonably well written but there are a number of conceptual and analytical problems that would need to be addressed before consideration for publication. They are listed below.

1) Although the authors are correct that chemsex may involve a variety of substances, historically crystal meth has been identified and studied as the core and most problematic substance involved in chemsex. In the present study, 85% of MSM reports to use XTC or MDMA for chemsex, of which the short and long term effects are very different from crystal meth (reported only by 9%). The authors should describe these differences in terms of fysiology, psychosocial and psychopathological effects and risks for dependency. They should also keep it in mind when they discuss and interprete their findings. Since most other studies aim to explain and understand crystal meth use in relation to HIV infection and other sequelae, this may affect the comparability of the present study within the total body of literature on the subject.

2) In their analysis, the authors merge group sex and "fisting" in one variable labeled "esoteric sexual practices". This variable should be disaggregated and factors reported and analyzed seperately. Group sex is not esoteric and one of the main features of chemsex and unlike "fisting" a strong independent predictor of HIV acquisition. It should not be lumped together with something of a complete different order. This reviewer also argues that group sex should not be seen/analyzed as a determinant of chemsex, but rather as an effect or something occurring downstream in the causal chain.

3) The authors define their psychosocial variable "habit" as "thinking about drugs when having sex". This is not how the habit forms itself. It is the other way around. When people think, fantasize or plan for sex, they think about drugs. Sex implies drugs and craving happens when thinking about it. Hence the thinking (and preparation) happens before and not during sex. It may be better to remove this variable from the model or clearly address its limitations in the methods or discussion section.

4) Non-response was considerable in the present study (53%). The authors should use data available from the electronic patient registry to compare responders with non-responders to assess potential bias and comment on the implications when generalizing and interpreting the results.

Reviewer #2: The study provides important findings about MSM practicing chemsex. A few comments for your consideration:

Major Comments:

• The conclusion of “heterogeneous group regarding socio-demographics” is unlikely to be supported by the insignificant difference of socio-demographics between the two groups. Insignificant difference, from my point of view, simply shows that the background of the two groups are similar.

• In DISCUSSION, paragraph 2, “the clustering of sexual health risks and possible drug and tobacco use” is unlikely to be supported by the findings. No cluster analysis was performed in this study. Please consider if you want to modify the description.

Minor Comments:

• ABSTRACT line 30, please indicate clearly that the study population referred to those having sex in the past 6 months.

• INTRODUCTION lines 97-98: please move Figure 1 (and its citation) to METHODS

• METHODS: Different in-text citation methods are observed, please standardise, e.g. line 111 compared with lines 134-135

• References in lines 178-179 are missing

• RESULTS: I am wondering if there are any multidrug data

• Mismatch between RESULTS and TABLE 2. In main text, the psychological determinants are described in terms of median, while TABALE 2 shows mean and SD. Interestingly, the number is the same. Please clarify whether they are median and IQR or mean and SD.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 May 2020

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled: ‘Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study’.

We greatly thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments, all addressed in our point-by-point reply (in the uploaded file). We revised and improved the manuscript accordingly. We are very pleased with the improvements made and hope you will find them satisfactory.

Kind regards, also on behalf of the co-authors,

Ymke Evers

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers file.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-31468R1

Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Evers,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As per the reviewer's suggestions, please take care to ensure all remnants of previous methods are removed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ethan Morgan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done a great job in addressing the reviewer comments given the limitation of their data.

Even though they have disaggregated group sex and fisting in their analysis (leading to much more plausible results), some sediments of the initial approach can be found in line 163-164 (of the revised version) in the methods section where they are still talking about lumping these together as one"esoteric practice". This needs to be corrected.

In line 295 (revised version) the authors introduce a new concept called "sober sex" as opposed to chemsex. Since not all drugs are included in the definition of chemsex, sober sex is not necessarily sober, but rather without sexual stimulant drugs. The statement should be changed accordingly.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Frits van Griensven

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 Jun 2020

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled: ‘Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study’.

We greatly thank the editor and reviewer for their helpful comments, all addressed below in our point-by-point reply. We are pleased with the improvements and hope you will find them satisfactory.

Kind regards, also on behalf of the co-authors,

Ymke Evers

Reviewer #1:

The authors have done a great job in addressing the reviewer comments given the limitation of their data.

Response: Thank you for the constructive feedback.

1. Even though they have disaggregated group sex and fisting in their analysis (leading to much more plausible results), some sediments of the initial approach can be found in line 163-164 (of the revised version) in the methods section where they are still talking about lumping these together as one"esoteric practice". This needs to be corrected.

Response: We corrected this as suggested by the reviewer and deleted the word esoteric practice.

2. In line 295 (revised version) the authors introduce a new concept called "sober sex" as opposed to chemsex. Since not all drugs are included in the definition of chemsex, sober sex is not necessarily sober, but rather without sexual stimulant drugs. The statement should be changed accordingly.

Response: We changed this sentence as suggested by the reviewer: ‘…that MSM practicing chemsex might be at risk of becoming drug dependent and not being able to return to enjoying sex without chemsex drugs’.

17 Jun 2020

Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study

PONE-D-19-31468R2

Dear Dr. Evers,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ethan Morgan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

22 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-31468R2

Attitude and beliefs about the social environment associated with chemsex among MSM visiting STI clinics in the Netherlands: an observational study

Dear Dr. Evers:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ethan Morgan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE