The study aims to assess the acceptability of male circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention and the potential for risk compensation in the continental U.S. METHODS.: ConsumerStyles 2008 survey was used to identify correlates of 1) a "likely" or "very likely" response among uncircumcised men to "How likely are you to get circumcised if your health care provider told you that circumcision would reduce your chance of becoming HIV infected?" and 2) agreement or neutrality with a statement indicating that given the protective effects of circumcision for heterosexual men shown by research, men do not have to worry about risks like not wearing condoms during sex or having more sex partners (assessed potential for risk compensation).
Response rate was 50.6% (10,108/19,996). Overall, 13.1% of uncircumcised men reported they would be likely to get circumcised if their health care provider told them it would reduce the risk of HIV infection through sex with infected women. Nearly 18% of all men responded in a way indicating a potential for risk compensation if circumcised.
Tailored educational materials about the benefits and risks, including risk compensation, associated with male circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention should be made available to health care providers and specific groups.
"It is therefore important to examine the acceptability of MC by adult males. In the USA, only 13% of uncircumcised heterosexual men indicated that they would be willing to become circumcised to lower their risk of HIV . In sub-Saharan Africa, however, where HIV is an epidemic, an extensive review of 13 studies found that a median of 65% (range 29-87%) of heterosexual men were willing to be circumcised . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.
We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.