Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement

More About Us

Advertisement
8 Oct 2013

Revisiting the safety spectrum: how gay men fall into different 'risk classes' for HIV

Gay men fall into different groups that are at radically different risk for acquiring HIV, Canadian research presented at the 11th International AIDS Impact Conference last week has found.


Are campaigns to promote condom use enough? Researcher Amélie
McFadyen said that her teams' results showed that while gay men
make strategic use of condoms, their risk-reduction strategies are
diversified and complex and go beyond condom use.
Above: A new campaign by New South Wales, Australia health
promotion organisation ACON which targets gay men.

The findings of the SPOT Study, presented by Amélie McFadyen, a Canadian Research Chair in Health Education, are reminiscent of Australian research first presented at the previous AIDS Impact Conference (Mao), which showed that gay men adopted many different strategies of varying effectiveness to regulate their risk of HIV. But these findings quantify these different behaviours and their likely effectiveness in more detail.

The SPOT study

The SPOT study is an ongoing research project offering free, anonymous, rapid HIV testing for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Montreal. Data on demographics and sexual and other behaviour were gathered from 1740 gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM), tested between July 2009 and January 2012 through structured interviews and self-administered questionnaires.

 

Participants were asked if they always, never or inconsistently used condoms; whether they ‘dipped’ in anal sex (i.e. withdrew before ejaculation); whether their partners’ status was HIV negative, positive or unknown; and whether, if their partner was HIV positive, whether they knew their viral load and if it was undetectable.

A large amount of data were collected in SPOT and some presented elsewhere at AIDS Impact, but the most intriguing analysis found that the men surveyed tended to fall into five ‘risk profiles’ of different sizes. The five risk profiles were created by a statistical approach known as latent class analysis. Some similarities were found amongst these profiles, but distinct strategies were clearly identifiable for each one.

Group one

This, the largest group, formed 52% of the men tested or about 900 individuals. This group was least likely to be diagnosed HIV positive (1.2%), but also least likely to have tested for HIV in the last year (47%). Nearly half of the group members (48%) were in a relationship, mainly with another HIV-negative man (84% of their partners were HIV negative at last test, 10% of unknown status and only 6% were HIV positive).

Whether in a relationship or not, they were less likely to have had one-off or occasional casual sex in the last three months than other groups (they had an average of 2.8 one-off or occasional partners in the last three months).

Over the last three months, 12% had had anal sex with a partner of unknown HIV status as a ‘top’ (i.e. they were insertive) and 8% as a ‘bottom’ (i.e. they were receptive – these are not mutually exclusive categories; many men did both). A third of those who had been bottoms had not used a condom (only a tenth of tops).

They had had very little sex with partners of known HIV-positive status (1.5% as top, 0.7% as bottom) of which half had been with partners they knew to have an undetectable viral load. Only 2 to 3% of this group reported sex in the previous three months that put them at risk of HIV.

Group two

This group was less monogamous than group one and less likely to know their partners’ HIV status, but maintained high levels of condom use. They formed nearly 18% of the SPOT participants, or about 300 individuals. Two per cent of this group tested HIV positive in SPOT and 57% had had an HIV test in the previous year. Thirty-nine per cent were in a relationship, 68% with a partner whose last test was HIV negative, 6% with an HIV-positive partner and 26% of unknown status (compared with 10% in group one).

They had had an average of 6.3 one-off or occasional partners in the last three months: 2.5 times as many as group one. Strikingly more men than in group one had had anal sex with a partner of unknown HIV status as a top (75%) or a bottom (78%) over the last three months, but they maintained high condom use (93% as a top, 100% as a bottom).

Again, few had had anal sex with partners known to have HIV (2.6% as top, only 0.6% as bottom) and they nearly always used condoms. This group had, on average, the highest educational level but were the least likely to have a primary relationship. They were also the second-most likely to have used post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Roughly 5% of this group reported sex in the previous three months that put them at risk of HIV.

Group three

Group three formed about 18% of the SPOT participants. They had, on average, the lowest educational status as a group. Like the two previous groups, they tended to avoid anal sex with men they knew to have HIV, but they were less monogamous than group one and had far lower condom use rates with unknown-status partners than group two. Forty-two per cent had a primary relationship, 56% with an HIV-negative partner and only 4% with a positive partner, so 40% did not know their partners’ status.

In this group, 2.6% tested positive in SPOT and 52% had had an HIV test in the previous year.

They had had an average of 6.3 one-off or occasional partners in the last three months. A similar proportion to group two had had anal sex with partners of unknown HIV status over the last three months as group two, though they were rather less likely to be bottom: 78% top, 50% bottom. However, their condom use rates were much lower: only 20% used a condom as top and 25% as bottom, and they were the most likely group to say they had had unprotected sex intentionally.

They had even less sex than groups one or two with partners they knew to have HIV, but their low condom usage rates with partners of unknown status meant that two-thirds of the group had had sex that put them at risk of HIV in the last three months, and numerically they formed the highest proportion of SPOT participants who were having sex that potentially put them at risk of HIV.

Group four

Group fourformed 9% of the SPOT participants or about 150 men. They also had high levels of unprotected sex with partners of unknown HIV status but had a lot more sex with men they did know had HIV, and in this group there was clear evidence of ‘viral sorting’ – they almost exclusively restricted unprotected sex with known HIV-positive partners to men with an undetectable viral load, so must have been having some discussion about HIV and viral load status. This was also the group most likely to define as gay rather than any other sexual orientation. They also had the highest alcohol use of any group.

However, they also had the highest proportion of regular partners of unknown status. Forty-two per cent had a primary relationship, 46% with an HIV-negative partner and 7% with a positive partner, so 46% did not know their partners’ status.

They had had an average of 8.7 one-off or occasional partners in the last three months: 2.5 times as many as group one. In total, 4.5% tested positive at SPOT – the highest diagnosis rate in the five groups – and 59% had had an HIV test in the previous year.

Sixty-nine per cent had had anal sex as top with partners of unknown status in the last three months, and 79% as bottom; only 26 and 19% respectively had used a condom in these encounters.

They hardly had any more sex with partners they knew to have HIV than the previous groups, if those partners had an unknown or detectable viral load – 0.6% as top and 3.8% as bottom, and all but one of these few encounters involved using a condom.

But they were strikingly more likely to have sex with men they knew had HIV and an undetectable viral load. Fourteen per cent (21 individuals) had had sex as top and 13.5% (20 individuals) as bottom with ‘undetectable’ men, and condoms had only been used 20% of the time in these encounters.

Despite this, their low condom usage rates with partners of unknown status meant that they shared with group three the highest rate of sex that put them at risk of HIV. Two-thirds fell into this category, but because only half as many belonged to this group as group three they formed a smaller proportion of the at-risk men in the whole SPOT cohort.

Group five

Group five,the smallest group, formed 4% of the SPOT group or about 70 individuals. This group was distinct in having by far the highest proportion of regular partners they knew to have HIV: 48% were in a relationship and of them, 50% had an HIV-positive partner, 43% an HIV-negative one and only 7% a partner of unknown status.

Not surprisingly, their HIV testing rate was very high – 74% had had a test in the last year – and their HIV diagnosis rate in SPOT was similar to group three at 2.8%. This group had the highest rates of use of most drugs except alcohol (group four) and cocaine (group three).

They had an average of 8.1 occasional or one-off partners in the last three months, and had somewhat lower rates of casual sex with partners of unknown status than any group except group one. Forty-six per cent had anal sex as top (condom use 45%) and 39% as bottom (condom use 61%) with partners of unknown status.

They had by far the highest rates of sex with partners they knew to have HIV or any group, but there was no evidence of ‘viral sorting’ – if anything, slightly the reverse, though the actual numbers are small for this group. Fifty-five per cent had had sex with an HIV-positive partner of unknown or detectable viral load as top in the last three months (62% with a condom) and 50% as bottom (63% with a condom); for partners with undetectable viral load the figures were 38% as top (67% with a condom) and 33% as bottom (78% with a condom). About 47% of this group had had sex that put them at risk of HIV in the last three months.

This group also had very high usage of PEP: 21% had ever used PEP compared with 17% of group four and 9 to 12% in the other groups.

Conclusions

A rough calculation shows that approximately 20 to 22% of SPOT participants had had sex in the last three months that put them at risk of HIV, and that groups three and four accounted for roughly 80% of these risky epsiodes.

Amélie McFadyen commented that her teams’ results showed that while gay men make strategic use of condoms, their risk-reduction strategies are diversified and complex and go beyond condom use. The groups showed evidence of various combinations of serosorting, viral sorting, negotiated safety, viral load, HIV testing and PEP.

“Public health messages, prevention programs, and counselling must be adjusted to account for this diversity,” she added.

This article was first published by NAM/Aidsmap.com and is republished with permission.

References

McFadyen A et al. Beyond unprotected anal intercourse, what do HIV negative gay and bisexual men really do? : Latent class analysis draws a complex portrait of risk reduction strategies. Eleventh AIDS Impact Conference, Barcelona, abstract #461, 2013.

Mao LM et al. Rates of condom and non-condom-based anal intercourse practices among homosexually active men in Australia: deliberate HIV risk reduction? Sexually Transmitted Infections 87:489-493, 2011.

 

Reader's Comments

1. 2013-10-08 21:18  
Before you read this… keep in mind that I am posting this out of love…

My response after reading this article is one of "Frustration!"

There are two kinds of people in this world… conventionally minded, and unconventionally minded. The conventional people get sick, go to their doctor, and do what ever they are told to do regardless of the success rate…

Unconventionally minded people study the success rate of the "accepted" treatments and search for something more that might have a greater success rate for a cure… Such as the use of herbs, and Chinese medicine which is considered "Unconventional" in America and highly discouraged…

I, being of the second group, have done much research on the subject of diseases and have found that there is more than one remedy which claims a greater success rate than our "accepted" treatments… But the one which impressed me the most was discovered by a man named "Jim Humble."

My own personal experience is… I was working as a "Spoken" English teacher in China a few years ago when one day while taking a shower I discovered a small lump in the fatty tissue of my butt. It was the size of a small BB like used in a bb gun. At the time I thought, "Hmmm… I don't like this.. I hope it doesn't start to grow."

Over the next two months, it did grow to the size of a ping pong ball, and was very uncomfortable to sit for very long… and being in a foreign country, I was a little embarrassed to go to a fellow teacher and get help with a doctor, so I decided to try mms and see what it would do first. Plan "B" was going to a doctor.

So I went to Jim Humble's web site and used the protocol for HIV/cancer and started taking my daily doses of mms. Two months later there was no sign of the lump!

I was going to post his discovery of mms on my post, but it would be another article in itself… So go to google or Baidu and search for "Jim Humble", and " the Story behind MMS" to read more about his discovery.

He was on a gold mining expedition deep in the jungle when two of the members of his team came down with malaria. They were too far away from civilization to rescue them in time, so he tried treating them with what they were using to purify their drinking water. They were cured of the malaria over night! After he returned to civilization, he did further research to see what else it would cure and discovered that it will destroy cancer, HIV, and pretty much every known disease known to man.

Think about the trillions in currency that is collected from disease and suffering each year. What self respecting "Capitalist" would be willing to give that much currency up? (as evidenced by the response the U.S. Government has had regarding Jim Humble… They have confiscated all his work related records, put him in jail, and forced him to live in another country, tried to discredit his name, and more…)

His discovery has been proven to cure Malaria, Cancer, HIV, and pretty much every major disease that is caused by a virus, parasite, or other known cause.

So I get a little tired of reading about the "Terrors" of HIV in the gay community when the remedy is out there for those who are willing to seek unconventional methods to their illness. I understand that there are many who are not open to new things and without lifting a finger to check out the validity of my post, will label it BS!

I am asking my fellow readers to, "Have an open mind", "Do your own research", and "Don't be afraid to try something new which isn't dangerous."

In regards to the content of the article... "Am ounce of Prevention is worth an pound of cure..." so by all means, be careful and use your parachute...

(My five cents…)
2. 2013-10-09 16:44  
Also posted out of love, here is the other side of the MMS story ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement
3. 2013-10-09 17:11  
MMS is chlorine dioxide similar to household bleach
4. 2013-10-09 18:40  
Any ON-TOPIC comments?
5. 2013-10-09 19:49  
On-TOPIC.... men sometimes think with the wrong head... condoms are the best solution to sexually transmitted diseases... Passions cloud the judgement.

Irishman, there are all too many websites to discredit someone out there, and when someone uses WikipediA... I seriously doubt that you spent much is ANY time at Jim Humbles site reviewing his findings and experiences. Chlorine dioxide has a completely different molecule than chlorine bleach! A common approach to scare people out of using it.

I realize that web sites can be easily faked... but if you take the time to review the information at the source, view his short movies and interviews, you will have to come to your own conclusions.

As someone who gave it a chance... I am testifying what it did for me and it did everything it was said to. When researching... go to the source and read as much as you can, then make up your own mind...
6. 2013-10-12 14:49  
HIV transmitted by sexual activities.
I have no sex for months, that is fine
There is way to replace sexual desire:
- Helping people
- go to restaurant, offer yourself to wash dishes
- see garden of your neighbour, offer yourself to pour fertilizer
- see disable people, give your hand if they have no hands
- go to library, find new knowledge
- so manything to forget your sexual desire

I know few gays with interesting cocks but they always want to fuck bb, No worries..their interesting cock become unuseful, imagine that cock become full of disaster.

7. 2013-10-12 15:00  
Where group do you fall into if you only suck cock and do not top or bottom. ????????????

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement