Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36256495›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2022

Support, care and peer support for gay and bi men engaging in chemsex.

Maurice Nagington, Sydney King

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maurice NagingtonUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sydney KingUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this research was to explore how gay men use drugs in their sex lives, colloquially called "chemsex". This paper reports on a sub-theme within the research about support, care and peer support. Longitudinal interviews were conducted with 20 gay and bi men between April 2017 and July 2019. Participants were recruited via geolocated dating apps (n = 17) and snowball sampling (n = 3). The main findings of this research are that medicalised forms of support for gay and bi men engaging in chemsex are often tardy in their responses to need, and whilst helpful for cessation of drug use, fail to address the holistic needs of the participants. A wide variety of peer support was practiced amongst the sample which often echoed previous forms of peer support practiced in the LGBT+ community. It was offered by both people who engaged in chemsex and those who did not and was highly beneficial to people who experienced problems with chemsex. However, peer support was also limited by factors such as shame and the instability of those offering support. In conclusion, we suggest that medicalised forms of chemsex support could benefit from more rigorous and rapid forms of assessment for problematic chemsex, and also provide infrastructure and training to peer support initiatives. We also suggest that medical services could learn from patients and their peers about what support needs remain unaddressed by professional services, and engage in collaborative approaches to practice development.

Indexed as

Sexual and Gender MinoritiesSubstance-Related DisordersHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleRisk-TakingSexual Behavior

Identifiers

PMID36256495
PMCPMC10092040
OpenAlexW4306733888

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.