Article

Increases in noninjection methamphetamine use in men who have sex with men, men who do not have sex with men, and Latino men diagnosed with AIDS in Los Angeles County, 2000 through 2004.

JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 09/2007; 45(5):601-3. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e318093deca
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
49 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Demographic and behavioral factors associated with methamphetamine use are presented for 455 men who have sex with men (MSM) and 228 non-MSM diagnosed with AIDS in Los Angeles County (LAC) from 2000 to 2004, as there are limited population-based data for these subgroups. Lifetime methamphetamine use was 35% for MSM, 14% for non-MSM, 50% for white MSM, and 35% for black MSM. Methamphetamine use in the previous 12months among MSM (11%) and non-MSM (0.4%) was less than lifetime use. Compared to MSM with no history of methamphetamine use in a multivariate analysis, MSM methamphetamine users were more likely to be non-Latino (white or black) (OR=2.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 4.9) compared to Latino and reported ≥10 sexual partners in the previous 12months (OR=3.1, 95% CI: 1.7, 5.6). These data indicate that methamphetamine has been widely used by both MSM and non-MSM with AIDS in LAC and that lifetime use is associated with sexual risk behaviors among MSM.
    AIDS and Behavior 09/2008; 12(5):705-712. DOI:10.1007/s10461-007-9315-7 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Latina women represent nearly half of all females diagnosed with AIDS in Los Angeles County, yet little is known about their risk behaviors compared to women of other race/ethnicities. Compared to white and African American women with AIDS, Latinas with AIDS had fewer lifetime male sexual partners (P<.0001); reported fewer sexually transmitted diseases (OR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.5); were less likely to trade sex for drugs/money (OR=0.18; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.5); and were less likely to report exposure to HIV via injection drug use (OR=0.3; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.99). Latinas were also more likely to be single mothers (OR=3.02; 95% CI: 1.4, 6.4); less likely to receive public assistance (OR=0.33; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.70); were less likely to have completed high-school (OR=0.11; 95% CI: .04, .31) and were more likely to never have had health insurance (OR=2.44; 95% CI: 1.15, 5.18). The data demonstrate low-risk behaviors for Latinas and underscores the challenge of delivering effective HIV prevention to women without traditional risk profiles. KeywordsWomen-Latinas-Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome-Sex behavior-Drug usage-Risk factors
    Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 12/2010; 12(6):882-893. DOI:10.1007/s10903-009-9294-z · 1.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methamphetamine and cocaine use have been associated with a vulnerability to HIV infection among men who have sex with men and among men who have sex with women but not specifically among Mexican migrants in the United States. The California-Mexico Epidemiological Surveillance Pilot was a venue-based targeted survey of male and female Mexican migrants living in rural and urban areas in California. Among men (n = 985), the percentage of methamphetamine/cocaine use in the past year was 21% overall, 20% in male work venues, 19% in community venues, and 25% in high-risk behavior venues. Among women, 17% reported methamphetamine/cocaine use in high-risk behavior venues. Among men, methamphetamine/cocaine use was significantly associated with age less than 35 years, having multiple sex partners, depressive symptoms, alcohol use, sexually transmitted infections (including HIV), and higher acculturation. Prevention interventions in this population should be targeted to specific migrant sites and should address alcohol, methamphetamine, and cocaine use in the context of underlying psychosocial and environmental factors.
    AIDS education and prevention: official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education 10/2009; 21(5 Suppl):34-44. DOI:10.1521/aeap.2009.21.5_supp.34 · 1.51 Impact Factor