ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Access without speakability: rush use, chemsex boundaries, and sexual healthcare communication among MSM in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rush use has been increasingly discussed in relation to HIV/STI risk among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China, yet less is known about how users interpret rush in sexual contexts or whether it becomes discussable within sexual healthcare. This study examined how rush was understood, classified, and managed in relation to pleasure, risk, chemsex boundaries, and healthcare communication. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 adult MSM in China who had used rush in a sexual context within the previous 12 months. Interviews explored participants' experiences of rush use, distinctions between rush, sexual enhancement, "drug use," and chemsex, risk perception and management, and experiences with sexual healthcare. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Rush was frequently normalized as sexual facilitation, with participants describing it as a way to manage bodily readiness, sexual confidence, partner expectations, and app-mediated encounters. Its classification remained unstable: participants often distinguished rush from more stigmatized forms of "drug use," while recognizing that its meaning could shift in longer, group-based, or more substance-involved encounters. Risk perception was similarly selective. HIV/STI risk was more readily articulated through familiar prevention vocabularies, whereas rush-specific concerns were often treated as embodied, situational, and privately manageable. Even among participants who accessed testing, PrEP/PEP-related care, self-testing, or community-based services, disclosure could remain partial when discussing rush required making sexual circumstances, bodily after-effects, partner pressure, or substance use visible. Discussion: Access to sexual healthcare did not necessarily make rush-related concerns fully speakable. Sexual health services may therefore benefit from confidential, non-judgmental, and MSM-sensitive communication that allows rush to be discussed as part of sexual practice while addressing bodily effects, possible substance interactions, partner dynamics, and harm-reduction needs.
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.