ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Associations Between Methods of Meeting Sexual Partners and Sexual Practices Among Heterosexuals: Cross-sectional Study in Melbourne, Australia.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in digital dating app use and app-mediated sexual and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Sexual medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe association between meeting partners on the web and sexual practices has been understudied in heterosexuals.
objectiveThis study aims to examine the associations between the methods of meeting partners and sexual practices and HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in heterosexuals.
methodsWe conducted a survey among heterosexuals attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in 2019. This survey asked about the methods through which the participants engaged in meeting their sexual partners, sexual practices, and intravenous drug use (IVDU) over the past 3 months. The participants' HIV and STI (chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis) status was obtained from clinical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between each method of meeting and the participants' sexual practices, IVDU, and STI status.
resultsA total of 698 participants (325 men and 373 women) were included in the study. Most of the participants reported using only one method to meet partners (222/325, 68.3% men; 245/373, 65.7% women; P=.05). The men met partners most commonly at social venues (eg, bar, pub, or party; 126/325, 38.8%), whereas the women met partners most commonly through friends or family (178/373, 47.7%). Paying for sex was associated with men meeting partners at sex venues (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 145.34, 95% CI 26.13-808.51) and on the internet (AOR 10.00, 95% CI 3.61-27.55). There was no association between IVDU and methods of meeting. Social venues were associated with condomless vaginal sex among men (AOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.94-5.71) and women (AOR 2.58, 95% CI 1.61-4.13) and testing positive for STI among men (AOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.24-7.48) and women (AOR 3.75, 95% CI 1.58-8.89).
conclusionsHeterosexuals who met partners at social venues had a more than threefold risk of testing positive for STIs, indicating that heterosexuals may benefit from health promotion campaigns that are delivered through a public setting.
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.