No abstract

No abstract

Background Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) report a higher prevalence of drug use in comparison to the general male population. However, in Ireland, there is a paucity of literature regarding the prevalence of drug use and its determinants among gbMSM. Aims/Objectives To quantify the prevalence of (i) recreational drug use (RDU) and (ii) sexualised drug use (SDU) among gbMSM in Ireland, and to identify the factors associated with these drug use practices. Methods The European MSM Internet Survey (EMIS) 2017 was an online, anonymous, internationally-promoted questionnaire. Two binary outcomes were included in our analyses: (1) RDU and (2) SDU in the previous year. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression explored factors associated with these outcomes, and all independent covariates were adjusted for one another. Results Among gbMSM without HIV (n = 1,898), 40.9% and 13.1% engaged in RDU and SDU in the previous year, respectively. Among diagnosed-positive gbMSM (n = 141), the past-year respective prevalence estimates were 51.8% and 26.2%. Increased odds of RDU were observed among gbMSM who were younger (vs. 40+ years) (18–24 years; AOR 2.96, 95% CI 2.05–4.28, 25–39 years; AOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.27–2.16), lived in Dublin (vs. elsewhere) (AOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.17–1.83), and engaged in condomless anal intercourse (CAI) in the previous year (vs. none) (1–2 partners; AOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.34–2.38, 6+ partners; AOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.18–2.71). Greater odds of SDU were identified among those who lived in Dublin (vs. elsewhere) (AOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07–2.10), and engaged in CAI (vs. none) (1–2 partners; AOR 3.16, 95% CI 2.05–4.88, 3–5 partners; AOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.47–4.26, and 6+ partners; AOR 3.79, 95% CI 2.23–6.43). Conclusion GbMSM report a high prevalence of drug use in Ireland. Targeted interventions, including harm reduction campaigns, may be needed to support healthier drug use choices among this community.

12,997 (78%) and 13,145 (71%) had a cohort participating partner, respectively. However, partner participation was much lower in BiB: 3131/11,538 pregnancies (27%) had a cohort participating partner. Consistently across all cohorts, in pregnancies with cohort participating partners, mothers were more likely to be living with their partner before birth of the child, be white and have a university degree. They were consistently less likely to have no qualifications and their babies were less likely to be born preterm or have a low birthweight. We saw relatively stable effect estimates within cohorts for associations between maternal smoking and offspring birthweight regardless of whether we used the full sample, the sample where fathers participated (selected either through stratification or adjusting for partner smoking), or the sample where fathers did not participate. Conclusion Overall, these results show partner selection is unlikely to cause strong selection bias in estimates of maternal effects. This suggests that, although inclusion of partner data with high levels of non-random missingness has the potential to introduce selection bias, in practice, the biasing effect appears to be small. This also has implications for studies of partner effects in their own right.