Preferences about the characteristics of future HIV prevention products among men who have sex with men.
ABSTRACT This study of men who have sex with men (MSM) examined preferences about the characteristics of a potential product for preventing sexual transmission of HIV, such as a rectal microbicide. MSM were recruited in West Hollywood, California. They self-administered a questionnaire and rated 48 product characteristics representing seven dimensions. Overall, the ratings were highest for effectiveness in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, followed by characteristics reflecting the physical or secondary effects of the product and logistics of use. Physical attributes, convenience/accessibility, and psychological aspects had intermediate ratings; interpersonal dynamics had the lowest rating. Men with negative attitudes about using condoms to prevent HIV infection were more likely than their counterparts to prefer a product that does not reduce sexual sensation or pleasure, does not break the mood, and can be used after a sexual encounter ends. A similar pattern was observed when participants were stratified by whether or not they had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse in the past 12 months. The findings inform the development, testing, and marketing of a future HIV prevention product for MSM.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Sheila T Murphy, Jun 30, 2015
Click to see the full-text of:
Article: Preferences about the characteristics of future HIV prevention products among men who have sex with men.
- SourceAvailable from: Jeffrey T Parsons[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Unprotected sex among gay/bisexual men throughout the AIDS epidemic has usually been described as unintentional due to a relapse from safer sex behavior. The term "barebacking" emerged among HIV-positive men explicitly seeking unprotected sex with seroconcordant partners, but has come into use in the larger gay community to simply mean condomless sex. Some men have also taken on the identity as a "barebacker." The present study assessed prevalence and predictors of bareback identity in a sample 687 gay/bisexual men attending community events. Barebackers reported significantly more use of crystal methamphetamine and higher peer norms for unprotected sex; HIV-negative barebackers were higher in sexual compulsivity while HIV-positive barebackers were higher in romantic obsession as well as drug/alcohol influenced sexual expectancies. HIV prevention efforts targeting barebackers and barebacking must be carefully developed if programs and campaigns are to be effective given the open debates about this phenomenon in the gay community.AIDS and Behavior 04/2007; 11(2):277-87. DOI:10.1007/s10461-006-9135-1 · 3.49 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Condoms made of latex are not comfortable or appropriate for all consumers. Polyurethane condoms may provide a needed alternative. In a double-masked study, 805 monogamous couples were randomized to use either the polyurethane condom or the latex condom for six months. Couples recorded the frequency of intercourse, of condom use and of breakage and slippage throughout the trial in coital diaries and in detailed reports on the first five uses. Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception. The six-month pregnancy rate during typical use (adjusted for use of emergency contraception) was 4.8% for the polyurethane condom and 6.3% for the latex condom. Similarly adjusted pregnancy rates during consistent use over six completed menstrual cycles--2.4% for the polyurethane condom and 1.1% for the latex condom--did not differ significantly. Clinical failure rates (including breakage and slippage occurring during either intercourse or withdrawal) were 8.5% for the polyurethane condom and 1.6% for the latex condom. In general, male participants were more satisfied with the latex condom, and users of latex were significantly less likely to drop out of the study for condom-related reasons than were users of polyurethane. Although polyurethane and latex condoms provide equivalent levels of contraceptive protection, the polyurethane condom's higher frequency of breakage and slippage suggests that this condom may confer less protection from sexually transmitted infections than does the latex condom.Family Planning Perspectives 03/1999; 31(2):81-7. DOI:10.2307/2991645
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess the prevalence of and factors associated with "Barebacking" as a sociocultural phenomenon in a sample of HIV-positive and -negative men who have sex with men (MSM), and to assess the reasons for barebacking and venues for meeting partners. A cross-sectional survey of MSM recruited in the San Francisco Bay Area from July 2000 to February 2001. Barebacking, defined as "intentional anal sex without a condom with someone other than a primary partner", was assessed among men who had heard of the term. Participants were recruited outside multiple venues and interviewed later at community locations. Chi-square and multivariate logistic regression were used for analysis. The sample (n = 554) of MSM were African-American (28%), Latino (27%), white (31%) and other race/ethnicity (14%); 35% reported being HIV-positive. Seventy per cent of the men had heard of barebacking. Among men aware of the term, 14% had barebacked in the past 2 years (22% of HIV-positive versus 10% of HIV-negative men, P < 0.001); 10% of the full sample did so. The prevalence of barebacking did not differ by race/ethnicity or sexual orientation identification. Men tended to report bareback partners who had the same HIV serostatus; however, a sizeable proportion of men had partners of different or unknown serostatus. Increased physical stimulation and emotional connectedness were the primary reasons for barebacking. New approaches are needed to reduce bareback behavior and the risk of HIV transmission, including innovative health-promoting behavioral and biomedical interventions.AIDS 04/2002; 16(4):653-9. DOI:10.1097/00002030-200203080-00018 · 6.56 Impact Factor