Condom-Use Decision Making in the Context of Hypothetical Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Efficacy Among Substance-Using Men Who Have Sex With Men: Project MIX

Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention, Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.56). 07/2011; 58(3):319-27. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31822b76d2
Source: PubMed


To examine condom-use decision making in the context of hypothetical pre-exposure prophylaxsis (PrEP) efficacy among men who have sex with men who use alcohol and other substances during sex.
Substance-using men who have sex with men were recruited in 4 US cities for a behavioral intervention trial. Three groups were defined as follows: men who indicated that to not use a condom for receptive/insertive unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) while using PrEP, PrEP would need to be: (1) "almost always or always" effective (high efficacy); (2) effective "at least half the time or more but not almost always or always" (mid-range efficacy corresponding to recent PrEP trial results); (3) effective "less than half the time" (low efficacy). The mid-range efficacy group was compared with the low-efficacy group (as the reference) and to the-high efficacy group (as the reference).
Among 630 men who never used PrEP, 15.2% were in the mid-range efficacy group for receptive UAI and 34.1% in the mid-range efficacy group for insertive UAI. Scores on difficulty communicating about safer sex while high were significantly higher in the mid-range efficacy group compared with each of the other groups for both receptive and insertive UAI. Men who seemed to be differentiating PrEP use by anal sex role also scored higher on communication difficulties, although scoring lower on condom intentions.
Communication about safer sex while under the influence of alcohol or other substances and condom intentions are important factors to consider for HIV prevention interventions for PrEP users.

1 Follower
16 Reads
  • Source
    • "Measures of outness tend to ask participants about the degree to which they are open about their same-sex attraction (out), and it is common for outness to be assessed using a single item. Like other researchers (Koblin et al., 2011), we have used a single-item indicator of outness in our research (Rosser, Bockting, Ross, Miner, & Coleman, 2008; Wilkerson, Smolenski, Brady, & Rosser, 2012). However, for some time, there have been concerns about the validity of this single-item indicator, specifically whether it accurately captures the critical factors conceptualized as being a part of the outness construct or whether it should be abandoned in favor of a multi-item scale. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, we investigated if a single-item indicator measured the degree to which people were open about their same-sex attraction (“out”) as accurately as a multi-item scale. For the multi-item scale, we used the Outness Inventory, which includes three subscales: family, world, and religion. We examined correlations between the single- and multi-item measures; between the single-item indicator and the subscales of the multi-item scale; and between the measures and internalized homonegativity, social attitudes towards homosexuality, and depressive symptoms. In addition, we calculated Tjur’s R 2 as a measure of predictive power of the single-item indicator, multi-item scale, and subscales of the multi-item scale in predicting two health-related outcomes: depressive symptoms and condomless anal sex with multiple partners. There was a strong correlation between the single- and multi-item measures (r = 0.73). Furthermore, there were strong correlations between the single-item indicator and each subscale of the multi-item scale: family (r = 0.70), world (r = 0.77), and religion (r = 0.50). In addition, the correlations between the single-item indicator and internalized homonegativity (r = −0.63), social attitudes towards homosexuality (r = −0.38), and depression (r = −0.14) were higher than those between the multi-item scale and internalized homonegativity (r = −0.55), social attitudes towards homosexuality (r = −0.21), and depression (r = −0.13). Contrary to the premise that multi-item measures are superior to single-item measures, our collective findings indicate that the single-item indicator of outness performs better than the multi-item scale of outness.
    Archives of Sexual Behavior 08/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10508-015-0605-2 · 3.53 Impact Factor

  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine 01/2013; 44(1):S80–S85. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.036 · 4.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and the likelihood of decreased condom use among Australian gay and bisexual men. A national, online cross-sectional survey was conducted in April to May 2011. Bivariate relationships were assessed with χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess independent relationships with primary outcome variables. Responses from 1161 HIV-negative and untested men were analysed. Prior use of antiretroviral drugs as PrEP was rare (n=6). Just over a quarter of the sample (n=327; 28.2%) was classified as willing to use PrEP. Willingness to use PrEP was independently associated with younger age, having anal intercourse with casual partners (protected or unprotected), having fewer concerns about PrEP and perceiving oneself to be at risk of HIV. Among men who were willing to use PrEP (n=327), only 26 men (8.0%) indicated that they would be less likely to use condoms if using PrEP. The likelihood of decreased condom use was independently associated with older age, unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners (UAIC) and perceiving oneself to be at increased risk of HIV. The Australian gay and bisexual men the authors surveyed were cautiously optimistic about PrEP. The minority of men who expressed willingness to use PrEP appear to be appropriate candidates, given that they are likely to report UAIC and to perceive themselves to be at risk of HIV.
    Sexually transmitted infections 01/2012; 88(4):258-63. DOI:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050312 · 3.40 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications