HIV Point of Care Testing (PoCT) at Late-Night Sex on Premises Venues (SOPV) for Gay and Bisexual Men and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (GBMSM): A Mixed Methods Analysis

Attitudes Toward Peer-Delivered Sexual-Health Services Among New York City Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals Who Have Sex with Men and Attend Collective Sex Venues

“…Although studies have documented sexual-health services at collective sex venues for MSM (Daskalakis et al, 2009; Debattista, 2015; Gallagher et al, 2014; Huebner et al, 2012; Mullens et al, 2020; Woods et al, 2008), little has been published about how attendees perceive such programs. In this study, we found on-site sexual-health services to be highly acceptable among men and transgender and gender non-conforming individuals who have sex with men and who attend collective sex venues in NYC.…”

“…Though they were generally positive about potential on-site sexual-health services, participants underscored the importance that peers deliver them. There are reports of peer-delivered on-site HIV/STI testing programs at collective sex venues (Mullens et al, 2020; Strömdahl et al, 2019); however, as is common in publications on peer work (Simoni, Franks, et al, 2011), these studies have not defined what characterized these workers as peers, or how these characteristics benefited the interventions. In our study, participants described how sharing demographics (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, or gender) with attendees would ensure workers do not stand out in a way that would be uncomfortable.…”

“…Participants who thought peer workers should remain dressed, stay in the outermost areas of venues, not actively approach attendees, and not participate in the sexual activity of the venues might have envisioned the service along the “peer outreach” modality, in which peers bridge existing clinical services and resources with people in community settings (Simoni, Nelson, et al, 2011). This model was the one used in documented peer work at sex venues where peers, though they shared characteristics with attendees (e.g., demographics and sexual identity), maintained boundaries from them, for instance, by wearing clothes identifying them with their organization (Debattista, 2015; Mullens et al, 2020). As workers conducting peer outreach are often connected with health organizations, they can be expected (both by their organization and attendees) to maintain a professional boundary from others at sex venues.…”

“…On-site sexual-health services in collective sex venues have included the distribution of sexual-health information (Smith et al, 2010b; Woods et al, 2010), establishing safer-sex guidelines for venues (Grov et al, 2014a; Wohlfeiler, 2000; Wohlfeiler & Potterat, 2005; Woods et al, 2013), and on-site HIV/STI testing or counseling (Daskalakis et al, 2009; Debattista, 2015; Gallagher et al, 2014; Huebner et al, 2012; Mullens et al, 2020; Woods et al, 2008). Though their effectiveness has not been tested, on-site HIV testing programs have been able to identify higher rates of positive results or acute (recent) infections compared to clinical settings (Daskalakis et al, 2009; Mullens et al, 2020; Woods et al, 2000). However, some programs reported relatively low utilization (Debattista, 2015), and little is known about how attendees of collective sex venues perceive on-site sexual-health services.…”

“…Nevertheless, a study of an on-site testing program at bathhouses found that the presence of outreach workers did not reduce the attendance or turn patrons away (Huebner et al, 2012). Researchers have emphasized the importance for sexual-health services at collective sex venues to enlist workers whose presence will not disrupt the erotic atmosphere of sex venues, such as peers (Mullens et al, 2020; Woods et al, 2008). However, to our knowledge, there have been no studies which examined preferences for peer characteristics or delivery strategies.…”