Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38555721›Full record

SynthesisThe International journal on drug policy2024

Exploring practices to enhance benefits and reduce risks of chemsex among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: A meta-ethnography.

Drew E Hawkinson, T Charles Witzel, Mitzy Gafos

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The International journal on drug policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. LivingmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. An online study to understand chemsex in India.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. South African harm reduction guideline for chemsex.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Drew E HawkinsonLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
T Charles WitzelInstitute for Global Health, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom; Center of Excellence in Research on Gender, Sexuality and Health, Mahidol University, 999 Phutthamonthon Sai 4 Rd, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Mitzy GafosDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: mitzy.gafos@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 226345Wellcome Trust 226345/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemsex is the intentional combining of specific drugs with sex, primarily by gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), to enhance intimacy, pleasure, and prolong sexual sessions. Practices vary across geographic and social settings. Participants report benefits and risks of chemsex. Studies have previously reviewed chemsex practices and harm reduction interventions separately. This review aims to examine both together by describing and understanding practices that men employ to navigate the perceived benefits and risks of chemsex.

methodsWe conducted a systematic meta-ethnographic review of published qualitative literature, screening titles, abstracts, and full texts on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using reciprocal and refutational translation techniques, we analysed study participants' (first-order) and researchers' (second-order) accounts of benefit-enhancing and risk-reducing chemsex practices. Finally, we employed line-of-argument synthesis techniques to develop our own higher-level interpretations (third-order constructs) of these chemsex practices.

resultsOur search yielded 6356 records, from which, we included 23 articles in our review. Most studies were conducted in high-income Western countries. Across studies, participants acted at the individual, interpersonal, and community levels to enhance benefits and reduce risks, which made up our third-order constructs. Eight themes emerged from first- and second-order constructs to describe these practices, which included personal preparation, personal boundaries, biomedical measures, structured use of drugs, leaning on partners, injecting practices, group organising, watching out for others, and teaching and learning. Contextual factors like trust, agency, access, stigma, and setting moderated whether and how participants engaged in these practices, and if practices enhanced benefits or reduced risks.

conclusionHealth promotion programmes and research focused on chemsex must account for the benefits and the risks that GBMSM associate with this type of sexualised drug use and target the moderating factors that shape the practices they employ to navigate these benefits and risks.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionHomosexuality, MaleSexual and Gender MinoritiesAnthropology, CulturalBisexualityHumansIllicit DrugsMaleSexual BehaviorSubstance-Related DisordersIllicit DrugsChemsexGay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with menHarm reductionMeta-ethnography

Identifiers

PMID38555721
PMCPMC7618392

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.