The impact of meeting locations for men having sex with men on the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections: analyses from a cross-sectional online survey

Abstract

ObjectivesOpportunities for men having sex with men (MSM) to meet each other have very much improved by new communication technologies. Meeting venue-based characteristics can impact how many partners are met and how much sexual risk is taken. We analysed the association between physical and virtual venues and the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (bSTIs) among participants in an MSM online survey.MethodsData were collected during 2013/2014 with a survey targeting MSM living in Germany. The impact of the meeting place with the last non-steady anal sex partner on diagnosis with a bSTI in the previous year was analysed using bivariate and multivariate regression analysis, taking into account self-reported HIV status, serostatus communication, condom use, partner number, age and city size.ResultsThe study sample consisted of 8878 respondents (7799 not diagnosed with HIV; 1079 diagnosed with HIV). Meeting partners online was most common (62% HIV−/51% HIV+), followed by sex venues (11% HIV−/25% HIV+); other venues were each reported by 2–6% of the respondents. Venue-dependent proportions reporting bSTIs in the recent year were 2–4 folds higher among men diagnosed with HIV. In multivariate analysis, HIV status was the strongest predictor for bSTIs (OR=5.0; 95% CI 2.8 to 8.7). Compared with meeting partners online, sex (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5) and social venues (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6) were associated with increased bSTI risk for men not diagnosed with HIV, but the risk when meeting partners by smartphone apps was only of borderline significance (OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9 to 2.3). For men diagnosed with HIV, bSTI risk increased for sex venues (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.1), and was lower for non-gay/other venues (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5).ConclusionsVenues are connected to social-behavioural facets of corresponding sexual encounters, and may be important arenas for differential HIV and STI education, treatment and prevention.

Factors associated with bacterial sexually transmitted infection screening uptake and diagnosis among men who have sex with men in France

“…for at least one bSTI at their most recent screening; this could be explained by the fact that MSM with multiple sexual partners tend to frequent such places. This nding is consistent with other studies [51][52]. MSM meeting places are important to take into account when implementing sex education programs and early screening to ensure early treatment of bSTIs.…”

HIV serostatus knowledge and serostatus disclosure with the most recent anal intercourse partner in a European MSM sample recruited in 13 cities: results from the Sialon-II study

“…not the venue where they had met their most recent AI partner. Moreover, online dating and chat sites which represent one of the most relevant venues for serostatus disclosure [ 16 , 17 ] were not queried at all.…”

“…There was a lack of association of serostatus disclosure with the frequency of visiting specific gay sex venues such as gay saunas, bars with backrooms, or sex parties in the last 3 months, but we were unable to adequately assess the association between the setting where the most recent AI partner was met and HIV serostatus disclosure with this partner through our questionnaire [ 17 ].…”

Sexual Mixing by HIV Status and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Addressing Information Bias

“…24 Discussions surrounding HIV status and PrEP use are common in sexual partnerships of MSM but still far from universal. 17,20,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] MSM with diagnosed HIV are more likely to initiate these conversations and disclosure tends to be mutual, 17,[25][26][27]29 so knowledge may be differential with respect to HIV diagnosis status. 24 Additional variability occurs based on partnership duration or commitment level, 26,30 overlapping social networks, 25,27 and demographics.…”

“…17,20,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] MSM with diagnosed HIV are more likely to initiate these conversations and disclosure tends to be mutual, 17,[25][26][27]29 so knowledge may be differential with respect to HIV diagnosis status. 24 Additional variability occurs based on partnership duration or commitment level, 26,30 overlapping social networks, 25,27 and demographics. 24,25,28,32 Less is known about discussions of PrEP that may occur as part of a broader negotiation of HIV risk.…”