Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25828269›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2015

Exposing the gaps in awareness, knowledge and estimation of risk for anal cancer in men who have sex with men living with HIV: a cross-sectional survey in Australia.

Jason J Ong, Marcus Chen, Andrew Grulich, Sandra Walker, Meredith Temple-Smith, Catriona Bradshaw, Suzanne M Garland, Richard Hillman, David Templeton, Jane Hocking and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jason J OngMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; j.ong@unimelb.edu.au.
Marcus ChenMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrew GrulichKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia.
Sandra WalkerMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Meredith Temple-SmithGeneral Practice and Primary Health Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Catriona BradshawMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Suzanne M GarlandDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Richard HillmanWestmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David TempletonKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia.
Jane HockingMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Beng EuPrahran Market Clinic, Melbourne, Australia.
B K TeeThe Centre Clinic, Victorian AIDS Council, Melbourne, Australia.
Christopher K FairleyMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AUUNSW Sydney · AUAlfred Health · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUMelbourne Clinic · AUMelbourne Sexual Health Centre · AUUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe incidence of anal cancer is significantly higher in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV when compared to the general population. We aimed to assess their awareness, knowledge and perceived level of personal risk for anal cancer to help inform educational strategies targeting this group.

methodsA cross-sectional study of 327 HIV positive MSM in Melbourne, Australia, attending clinical settings (a sexual health centre, tertiary hospital HIV outpatients and high HIV caseload general practices) completed a written questionnaire in 2013/14. Poor knowledge was defined as those who had never heard of anal cancer, or scored 5 or less out of 10 in knowledge questions amongst those who reported ever hearing about anal cancer. Underestimation of risk was defined as considering themselves as having the same or lower risk for anal cancer compared to the general population.

resultsOf 72% (95% confidence interval (CI): 67-77) who had heard of anal cancer, 47% (95% CI: 41-53) could not identify any risk factors for anal cancer. Of total men surveyed, 51% (95% CI: 46-57) underestimated their risk for anal cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that men who underestimated their risk were older (OR 1.04 (per year increase in age), 95% CI: 1.01-1.07), had poor anal cancer knowledge (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21-3.51), and more likely to have ever had an anal examination (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.18-4.93). They were less likely to consult a physician if they had an anal abnormality (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.96), to have had receptive anal sex (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.59) or speak English at home (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09-0.90).

conclusionsThis survey of MSM living with HIV demonstrated limited awareness, knowledge level and estimation of risk for anal cancer. Further educational and public health initiatives are urgently needed to improve knowledge and understanding of anal cancer risk in MSM living with HIV.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MaleAdultAnus NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesHIV InfectionsHumansKnowledgeMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicRisk Factorsanal cancerHIVknowledgemen who have sex with menrisk

Identifiers

PMID25828269
PMCPMC4380906
OpenAlexW2049982726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.