Barcelona 2013
Menu
AIDSImpact.com
Conference Details
Authors
International Committee
Plenary Speakers
Presenting Speakers
Programme
Sessions
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements
| Abstract #458 - E-Posters English | ||||
|
Session: 50.98: E-Posters English (Poster) on Sunday in Chaired by Authors: Presenting Author: Mr Carl Rodrigue - Chaire de recherche du Canada en éducation à la santé (CRECES), Canada |
||||
| Additional Authors: Dr. Jordi Casabona, Sra Cristina Sanclemente, Dra. Anna Esteve, Dra. Victoria Gonzalez, Grupo HIVITS TS, | ||||
| Aim: 1) compare sociodemographic and sociosexual profiles for MSM who report being in a same-sex couple, according to couple status (monogamous/open); 2) assess sexual risk taking among MSM in relation to couple status. | ||||
| Method / Issue: Cross-sectional data from 735 MSM tested for HIV between May 2011 and July 2012 were gathered through structured interviews and self-administered questionnaires. 277 MSM in same-sex relationship were selected. 75.5% described their couple as monogamous (MSM-MC) and 24.5% described their couple as open (MSM-OC). Univariate logistic regression (URL) models were conducted to compare sociodemographic, sociosexual and behavioral variables according to couple status. Sexual activities with three types of partners were assessed: regular partners (couple partner); casual sexual partners (repeated encounters); and one-night stands (one-time encounters). Variables showing significant results were included in a multivariate logistic regression (MLR) model. | ||||
| Results / Comments: No significant results were found in the ULR regarding sociodemographic characteristics or the feeling of being at risk for HIV-infection. MLR revealed that MSM-OC, compared to MSM-MC, were more likely to: have had at least one casual sexual partner in the last three months (OR= 3.49, IC95% 1.68-7.26); report higher scores of behavioral control over condom use in high arousal contexts (OR=1.72, IC95% 1.22-2.43). MSM-OC were less likely to: avoid meeting partners in anonymous sex venues (OR=.82, IC95% .69-.97); ask about their partners? HIV status (OR=.84, IC95% .71-.99). No differences were found with regards to reporting at least one regular sexual partner (OR=.52, IC95% .20-1.37) or one-night stand partner (OR=1.20, IC95% .57-2.51) in the last three months. | ||||
| Discussion: The results show an association between couple status and the management of sexual risk taking among MSM. The MLR model suggests that the relational context with regards to outside sexual partners differs according to couple status. On the one hand, MSM-MC who have sex outside the couple are more likely to have one-night stands, possibly due to the challenge of having casual sexual relationships while being in a monogamous couple. On the other hand, being in an open couple would seem to make it easier to maintain casual sexual relationships. Differences regarding perception of control suggest that sexual arousal creates fewer difficulties with regards to behavioral control over condom use for MSM-OC. Risk reduction strategies also differ according to couple status. Even though MSM-OC report less avoidance of anonymous sex venues and are less likely to ask partners about their HIV status, these men may be using other strategies that are more adapted to their couple status (e.g. opting for casual sex rather than one-night stands). Despite differences in terms of sexual behavior, perception of behavioral control, and risk reduction strategies, MSM-OC do not differ from MSM-MC with regards to the feeling of being at risk for HIV infection. This suggests that MSM-OC rely on different criteria to manage and evaluate their sexual risk taking. Further research should continue to document the management of sexual risk taking in relation to couple status in order to improve understanding of sexual health issues as they relate to different relationship contexts. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||