No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Heterosexual students were asked to recall two sexual encounters from the preceding six months: one in which they had unprotected intercourse ('unsafe' encounter) and one in which they resisted a strong temptation to have unprotected intercourse ('safe' encounter). The aims were to record justifications for unprotected intercourse that respondents had given themselves during the unsafe encounter and to identify factors that distinguished between the encounters. In respondents recalling an unsafe encounter (n = 284), the most common self-justification reported was that there was no need for concern since measures to avoid pregnancy had been taken. The first factor that emerged from a Factor Analysis of the self-justification data involved using perceptible characteristics to infer that the partner was unlikely to be infected. Among respondents recalling both encounters (n = 173), there was a trend for type of partner to distinguish between the encounters. With this variable controlled (n = 115), desires, knowledge of condom availability, communication about condom use, degree of boredom, and level of intoxication differentiated between the encounters. The results are discussed in relation to those obtained in our earlier study of gay men.

Among the self-justifications that gay men use when engaging in high-risk sex is the thought that they are less at risk than most gay men. Two explanatory models of such 'unrealistic optimism' (UO) have been proposed: while the motivational account holds that UO arises because it serves the function of bringing comfort, the cognitive account holds that UO serves no particular function, being simply a by-product of normal cognitive strategies. This study investigated predictions derived from the motivational account. Gay men uninfected with HIV (n = 88) answered two test questions, requiring them to estimate, respectively, their own risk of becoming infected and that of the average gay man. The questions were presented in the two possible orders, and were either separated or not separated by unrelated filler material. The great majority of the men (89%) exhibited UO. Neither question order nor the interpolation of filler material affected responses to either test question. The results were inconsistent with the motivational account, but explicable in terms of the cognitive account. It seems that the cognitive account provides the better explanation of at least that form of UO measured in this study. Implications for AIDS educators are discussed.

These data provide a baseline for morbidity/mortality resulting from chickenpox before varicella vaccine use in Canada.

A substantial minority of HIV-infected Australians are not taking antiretroviral drugs. This study investigated the reasons behind their decision not to do so. Anyone who was HIV-infected but not taking antiretroviral drugs could participate. A self-administered, anonymous questionnaire was used, the principal recruitment method being through insertion of the questionnaire into gay community newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne. All respondents were asked questions covering demographics, previous AIDS-defining illnesses, T-cell and viral load monitoring, and previous use of antiretroviral drugs. In addition, respondents who had considered going on antiretroviral treatment, but then decided not to do so, were given a list of possible reasons for their decision and asked to indicate how much each played a role in their thinking. Of the 270 respondents, the great majority were gay men. One-eighth had experienced AIDS-defining illnesses. Two-thirds had recently had T-cell and viral load tests. One-third had taken antiretroviral drugs previously. Over two-thirds had considered antiretroviral therapy, most having given the matter quite some thought. Reasons for not taking up therapy did not differ greatly at different stages of HIV disease. The most common individual reason was fear of side effects. Important themes that emerged from factor analysis of the reasons data included distrust of conventional medical approaches to treatment, practical problems associated with taking antiretroviral drugs, unpleasant thoughts that being on therapy would evoke, and acceptance of the idea of dying. The findings can be used by doctors and counsellors to help patients clarify and evaluate their concerns about antiretroviral therapy.

In a qualitative study, 20 HIV-infected Australian gay men were interviewed about their decision not to access antiretroviral drug therapy. The main reasons given for the decision were fear of side effects; fear of long-term damage to body organs; the inconvenience of the treatment regimens; belief that the regimen's demands would be a threat to morale; and belief that there was no reason to start therapy in the absence of AIDS-related symptoms. Actions taken by the men to monitor and maintain their health included seeing a doctor regularly; having regular T-cell and viral load tests; and trying to maintain a positive outlook by not letting HIV/AIDS 'take over' their lives. Almost half the men considered they had been subjected to unreasonable pressure to access therapy and there was considerable pride at having resisted this pressure. The findings suggest that the men disagreed with the biomedical model for managing HIV/AIDS only on the question of if and when to access therapy. They also suggest that underlying the men's dissent from the biomedical model was a different mode of thinking than is required by the model: while the model demands thinking that is abstract, the men focused strongly on factors close to the 'here and now' of immediate experience. The practical implications of the findings are explored.