ArticleHealth education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education2012
Sexual agreement classifications for gay and bisexual men and implications for harm reduction HIV prevention.
Article in Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Substance-use and sexual harm reduction strategies of methamphetamine-using men who have sex with men and inject drugs.AIDS care · 2015Article
- Intimacy, monogamy, and condom problems drive unprotected sex among young men in serious relationships with other men: a mixed methods dyadic study.Archives of sexual behavior · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
HIV prevention educators frequently encourage gay and bisexual men (GBM) to negotiate condom use prior to sexual engagement. Identifying groups of GBM based on their presexual agreements can aid efforts to tailor interventions. Using cross-sectional data from 1,188 GBM who reported having sex with a nonprimary sex partner in the 90 days prior to the survey, the authors identified presexual agreement patterns. For both HIV-positive and HIV-negative GBM, two groups existed: men agreeing to no anal sex and men agreeing to anal sex with condoms. Among HIV-negative participants, there was a group agreeing to anal sex without specifying condom use. Among HIV-positive participants, there was a group agreeing to anal sex without condoms; this was the largest group of HIV-positive participants. Despite a presexual agreement to use condoms, substance use during sex increased the risk of unprotected anal sex. Suggestions for applying harm reduction to HIV prevention based on agreement classifications are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.