Online focus group discussions (FGDs) are becoming popular as a qualitative research method. Methodological examinations regarding the data quality of online versus more traditional in-person FGDs are limited. We compared two online FGDs with two in-person FGDs conducted with gay and bisexual men using a sensitive topic (the experience of intimate partner violence) to examine differences in data quality between the two methods. The online FGDs resulted in larger word count but were shorter in time than the in-person FGDs. There was high overlap in the themes generated across groups; however, the online discussions yielded one additional theme regarding a sensitive topic. In-person FGDs involved less sharing of in-depth stories, whereas sensitive topics were discussed more candidly in the online FGDs. The results illustrate that although theformatof the data generated from each type of FGD may differ, thecontentof the data generated is remarkably similar.

This article presents results from a systematic review of the literature on intimate partner violence (IPV) among US men who have sex with men (MSM). From 576 reviewed studies, a total of 28 met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The population characteristics of each study, definitions of IPV, prevalences of different forms of IPV, and statistically tested correlates of IPV are summarized for each study. The results indicate that all forms of IPV occur among MSM at rates similar to or higher than those documented among women, although data on perpetration rates of IPV are scant, and consensus as to IPV correlates among MSM is absent. This review also finds significant limitations the reviewed literature, notably the lack of a standardized, validated definition of IPV among MSM; use of unspecific recall periods for IPV; a lack of attention to non-physical, non-sexual forms of IPV; and near-universal use of cross-sectional, convenience samples of urban MSM. Researchers should develop and validate a MSM-specific definition of IPV, use more rigorous epidemiological methods to measure IPV and its effects, and clarify the mental and physical health outcomes associated with both receipt and perpetration of IPV.

This article examines the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among a national sample of Internet-recruited U.S. men who have sex with men (MSM) (n = 1,575), and associations between reporting of IPV, minority stress, and sexual risk-taking. Five outcomes are examined: experiences of physical and sexual violence, perpetration of physical and sexual violence, and unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) at last sexual encounter. MSM who reported experiencing more homophobic discrimination and internalized homophobia were more likely to report experiences of IPV. The results point to the need for prevention messages to address the external and internal stressors that influence both violence and sexual risk among MSM.

IntroductionRecent research suggests that men who have sex with men (MSM) experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at significantly higher rates than heterosexual men. Few studies, however, have investigated implications of heterosexist social pressures – namely, homophobic discrimination, internalized homophobia, and heterosexism – on risk for IPV among MSM, and no previous studies have examined cross-national variations in the relationship between IPV and social pressure. This paper examines reporting of IPV and associations with social pressure among a sample of internet-recruited MSM in the United States (U.S.), Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Brazil.MethodsWe recruited internet-using MSM from 6 countries through selective banner advertisements placed on Facebook. Eligibility criteria were men age over 18 reporting sex with a man in the past year. Of the 2,771 eligible respondents, 2,368 had complete data and were included in the analysis. Three outcomes were examined: reporting recent experience of physical violence, sexual violence, and recent perpetration of physical violence. The analysis focused on associations between reporting of IPV and experiences of homophobic discrimination, internalized homophobia, and heteronormativity.ResultsReporting of experiencing physical IPV ranged from 5.75% in the U.S. to 11.75% in South Africa, while experiencing sexual violence was less commonly reported and ranged from 2.54% in Australia to 4.52% in the U.S. Perpetration of physical violence ranged from 2.47% in the U.S. to 5.76% in South Africa. Experiences of homophobic discrimination, internalized homophobia, and heteronormativity were found to increase odds of reporting IPV in all countries.ConclusionThere has been little data on IPV among MSM, particularly MSM living in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the lack of consensus in demographic correlates of violence reporting, heterosexist social pressures were found to significantly increase odds of reporting IPV in all countries. These findings show the universality of violence reporting among MSM across countries, and highlight the unique role of heteronormativity as a risk factor for violence reporting among MSM. The results demonstrate that using internet-based surveys to reach MSM is feasible for certain areas, although modified efforts may be required to reach diverse samples of MSM.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) rates are disproportionately high among sexual minority populations. Few studies have examined the plausible relationship between minority stress and IPV among men who have sex with men. This study examines the associations between IPV and three indicators of minority stress: internalized homophobia, sexuality-based discrimination, and racism, in a large venue-based sample of gay and bisexual men from Atlanta, USA. Each of the minority stress measures was found to be significantly associated with increased odds of self-reporting any form of receipt of IPV. Significant associations were also identified between perpetration of IPV and minority stressors, with most types of IPV perpetration linked to internalized homophobia. This study confirms findings in a growing body of research supporting the relationship between minority stress and increased prevalence of IPV among men who have sex with men, and points to the need to address structural factors in IPV prevention programs for male–male couples.