Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35864473›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Barriers and facilitators to utilisation of public sexual healthcare services for male sex workers who have sex with men (MSW-MSM) in The Netherlands: a qualitative study.

Charlotte Merel Marije Peters, Nicole Helena Theodora Maria Dukers-Muijrers, Ymke Joline Evers, Christian Jean Pierre Antoine Hoebe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Charlotte Merel Marije PetersDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands. charlotte.peters@ggdzl.nl.
Nicole Helena Theodora Maria Dukers-MuijrersDepartment of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, South Limburg Public Health Service, PO Box 33, 6400 AA, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Ymke Joline EversDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Christian Jean Pierre Antoine HoebeDepartment of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
GGD Zuid Limburg · NLDepartment of Health Services · NPMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMale sex workers who have sex with men (MSW-MSM) are a high-risk group for sexually transmitted infections (STI) including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Provision of sexual services by MSW-MSM has shifted to the internet. Consequently, MSW-MSM have become hidden to care for providers of sexual healthcare services (SHS). The aim of this study was to 1) assess characteristics of the MSW-MSM population and 2) assess MSW-MSM's perceived barriers and facilitators to utilise SHS provided free and anonymously by the public health STI clinic in The Netherlands.

methodsFor this qualitative study, semi-structured individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 MSW-MSM who worked home-based in the Dutch province of Limburg. Participants were recruited from November 2018 to June 2019 by purposive sampling until saturation was reached via 1) five websites and smartphone applications commonly used by MSW-MSM, 2) STI clinic, 3) two gay saunas. A theory-informed interview guide was developed including themes such as sexuality, sex work, SHS and barriers and facilitators to SHS utilisation. The interviews' recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed by inductive and deductive coding with Atlas.ti 8.

resultsThe interviewed MSW-MSM were diverse in age (range: 18 - 66; median: 39.5) and mostly western European (85%). Identified barriers to SHS utilisation were lack of self-identification as homosexual and sex worker, perceived stigma on sex work and MSM, the lack of awareness of SHS and a low STI risk perception. Identified facilitators were trust in and positive attitude towards SHS, awareness of SHS's anonymous, confidential and free-of-charge nature, high STI risk perception and knowledgeable about STI/HIV. MSW-MSM-identified implications for SHS-providers were promotion of SHS on online MSW-MSM and general platforms (e.g. Facebook), offering one-on-one online and informal communication with an SHS-provider (e.g. STI clinic nurse) and providing STI (testing) information.

conclusionThe MSW-MSM population's diversity and identified barriers, facilitators and implications should be taken into account to optimize accessibility and utilisation of SHS for MSW-MSM in Western Europe. SHS-providers could facilitate sex work disclosure by personally asking patients about sex in exchange for money or goods in a non-judgmental manner and explaining the medical relevance of disclosure.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsSexual and Gender MinoritiesSexually Transmitted DiseasesSex WorkersDelivery of Health CareHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleNetherlandsSexual BehaviorImplications for careInternet fieldworkMale sex workers who have sex with menPreventionPublic health servicesSexual healthcare servicesSex work stigmaSTI/HIVSTI testingUtilisation

Identifiers

PMID35864473
PMCPMC9306090
OpenAlexW4286111166

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.