Acceptability of Condoms, Circumcision and PrEP among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Descriptive Study Based on Effectiveness and Cost
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results
Variable | Mean (SD) | n (%) |
---|---|---|
Age | 26.8 (5.66) | |
Anal insertive (top) sex | ||
Yes | 68 (71.6) | |
No | 27 (28.4) | |
Anal insertive (top) sex with a condom | ||
Yes | 50 (86.2) | |
No | 8 (13.8) | |
Anal insertive (top) sex without a condom | ||
Yes | 33 (55.9) | |
No | 26 (44.1) | |
Anal receptive (bottom) sex | ||
Yes | 70 (73.7) | |
No | 25 (26.3) | |
Anal receptive (bottom) sex with a condom | ||
Yes | 49 (79.0) | |
No | 13 (21.0) | |
Anal receptive (bottom) sex without a condom | ||
Yes | 42 (66.7) | |
No | 21 (33.3) |
Variable | n (%) |
---|---|
PrEP acceptance based on 100% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 67 (70.5) |
No | 28 (29.5) |
PrEP acceptance based on 75% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 41 (43.2) |
No | 54 (56.8) |
PrEP acceptance based on 50% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 20 (21.1) |
No | 74 (77.9) |
PrEP acceptance based on cost-Free | |
Yes | 58 (61.1) |
No | 36 (37.9) |
PrEP acceptance based on cost-$100 or less per month | |
Yes | 18 (18.9) |
No | 77 (81.1) |
PrEP acceptance based on cost-$500 per month | |
Yes | 16 (16.8) |
No | 77 (81.1) |
PrEP acceptance based on cost-$1000 per month | |
Yes | 13 (13.7) |
No | 82 (86.3) |
Variable | n (%) |
---|---|
Circumcised | |
Yes | 71 (74.7) |
No | 24 (25.3) |
Circumcision acceptance based on 100% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 12 (50.0) |
No | 12 (50.0) |
Circumcision acceptance based on 75% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 9 (37.5) |
No | 15 (62.5) |
Circumcision acceptance based on 50% or less effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 8 (33.3) |
No | 16 (66.7) |
Circumcision acceptance based on cost-Free | |
Yes | 13 (54.2) |
No | 11 (45.8) |
Circumcision acceptance based on cost-$100 or less | |
Yes | 4 (16.7) |
No | 20 (83.3) |
Circumcision acceptance based on cost-$500 or more | |
Yes | 1 (4.2) |
No | 23 (95.8) |
Variable | n (%) |
---|---|
Condom acceptance based on 100% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 69 (72.6) |
No | 26 (27.4) |
Condom acceptance based on 75% effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 57 (60.0) |
No | 38 (40.0) |
Condom acceptance based on 50% or less effectiveness against HIV | |
Yes | 40 (42.1) |
No | 55 (57.9) |
Condom/Lubricant acceptance based on cost-Free | |
Yes | 64 (67.4) |
No | 31 (32.6) |
Condom/Lubricant acceptance based on cost-$10 per month | |
Yes | 47 (49.5) |
No | 48 (50.5) |
Condom/Lubricant acceptance based on cost-$100 per month | |
Yes | 18 (18.9) |
No | 77 (81.1) |
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Prejean, J.; Tang, T.; Hall, H.I. HIV diagnoses and prevalence in the southern region of the united states, 2007–2010. J. Community Health 2013, 38, 414–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaji, A.B.; Oster, A.M.; Viall, A.H.; Heffelfinger, J.D.; Mena, L.A.; Toledo, C.A. Role flexing: How community, religion, and family shape the experiences of young black men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2012, 26, 730–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnosed HIV Infection among Adults and Adolescents in Metropolitan Statistical Areas—United States and Puerto Rico, 2010. In HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2013; Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
- Prejean, J.; Ruiguang, S.; Hernandez, A.; Ziebell, R.; Green, T.; Walker, F.; Hall, H. Estimated HIV incidence in the united states, 2006–2009. PloS One 2011, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Condoms and Stds: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel; Atlanta, GA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Crosby, R.A.; Bounse, S. Condom effectiveness: Where are we now? Sex Health 2012, 9, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, L.; Macaluso, M.; Austin, H.D.; Kleinbaum, D.K.; Artz, L.; Fleenor, M.E.; Brill, I.; Newman, D.R.; Hook, E.W., 3rd. Application of the case-crossover design to reduce unmeasured confounding in studies of condom effectiveness. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 161, 765–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, L.; Newman, D.R.; Austin, H.D.; Kamb, M.L.; Douglas, J.M., Jr.; Malotte, C.K.; Zenilman, J.M.; Rogers, J.; Bolan, G.; Fishbein, M.; et al. Condom effectiveness for reducing transmission of gonorrhea and chlamydia: The importance of assessing partner infection status. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 159, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosby, R.A.; Charnigo, R.A.; Weathers, C.; Caliendo, A.M.; Shrier, L.A. Condom effectiveness against non-viral sexually transmitted infections: A prospective study using electronic daily diaries. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2012, 88, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nodin, N.; Carballo-Dieguez, A.; Ventuneac, A.M.; Balan, I.C.; Remien, R. Knowledge and acceptability of alternative HIV prevention bio-medical products among msm who bareback. AIDS Care 2008, 20, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baeten, J.M.; Donnell, D.; Ndase, P.; Mugo, N.R.; Campbell, J.D.; Wangisi, J.; Tappero, J.W.; Bukusi, E.A.; Cohen, C.R.; Katabira, E.; et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thigpen, M.C.; Kebaabetswe, P.M.; Paxton, L.A.; Smith, D.K.; Rose, C.E.; Segolodi, T.M.; Henderson, F.L.; Pathak, S.R.; Soud, F.A.; Chillag, K.L.; et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in botswana. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saberi, P.; Gamarel, K.E.; Neilands, T.B.; Comfort, M.; Sheon, N.; Darbes, L.A.; Johnson, M.O. Ambiguity, ambivalence, and apprehensions of taking HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis among male couples in san francisco: A mixed methods study. PloS One 2012, 7, e50061. [Google Scholar]
- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fda Approves First Drug for Reducing the Risk of Sexually Acquired HIV Infection; Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Grant, R.M.; Lama, J.R.; Anderson, P.L.; McMahan, V.; Liu, A.Y.; Vargas, L.; Goicochea, P.; Casapía, M.; Guanira-Carranza, J.V.; Ramirez-Cardich, M.E.; et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 2587–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderon, Y.; Jason, L.; Cowan, E.; Brusalis, C.; Mantell, J.; Sandfort, T. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep)-knowledge and attitudes among a new york city emergency department patient population. Retrovirology 2012, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golub, S.A.; Kowalczyk, W.; Weinberger, C.L.; Parsons, J.T. Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J. Acquir. Immune Def. Syndr. 2010, 54, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, R.A.; Kaplan, R.L.; Lieber, E.; Landovitz, R.J.; Lee, S.J.; Leibowitz, A.A. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care 2011, 23, 1136–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khawcharoenporn, T.; Kendrick, S.; Smith, K. HIV risk perception and preexposure prophylaxis interest among a heterosexual population visiting a sexually transmitted infection clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2012, 26, 222–233. [Google Scholar]
- Grosskurth, H.; Mosha, F.; Todd, J.; Mwijarubi, E.; Klokke, A.; Senkoro, K.; Mayaud, P.; Changalucha, J.; Nicoll, A.; ka-Gina, G.; et al. Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural tanzania: randomized controlled trial. Lancet 1995, 346, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doyle, S.R.; Calsyn, D.A.; Ball, S.A. Factor structure of the condom barriers scale with a sample of men at high risk for HIV. Assessment 2009, 16, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Traditional Male Circumcision Among Young People: A Public Health Perspective in the Context of HIV Prevention; Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wiysonge, C.S.; Kongnyuy, E.J.; Shey, M.; Muula, A.S.; Navti, O.B.; Akl, E.A.; Lo, Y.R. Male circumcision for prevention of homosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 15, CD007496. [Google Scholar]
- Templeton, D. Male circumcision to reduce sexual transmission of HIV. Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS 2010, 5, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millett, G.A.; Flores, S.A.; Marks, G.; Reed, J.B.; Herbst, J.H. Cir cumcision status and risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men: A meta analysis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2008, 300, 1674–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millett, G.A.; Ding, H.; Lauby, J.; Flores, S.; Stueve, A.; Bingham, T.; Carballo-Dieguez, A.; Murrill, C.; Liu, K.L.; Wheeler, D.; et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and latino men who have sex with men in 3 us cities. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2007, 46, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maulsby, C.; Millett, G.; Lindsey, K.; Kelley, R.; Johnson, K.; Montoya, D.; Holtgrave, D. HIV among black men who have sex with men (msm) in the united states: A review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez, G.B.; Borquez, A.; Case, K.K.; Wheelock, A.; Vassall, A.; Hankins, C. The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies. PLoS Med. 2013, 10, e1001401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisingerich, A.B.; Wheelock, A.; Gomez, G.B.; Garnett, G.P.; Dybul, M.R.; Piot, P.K. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: A multinational study. PloS One 2012, 7, e28238. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, F.; Gao, L.; Li, S.; Li, D.; Zhang, L.; Fan, W.; Yang, X.; Yu, M.; Xiao, D.; Yan, L.; et al. Willingness to accept HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among chinese men who have sex with men. PloS One 2012, 7, e32329. [Google Scholar]
- Anglemyer, A.; Rutherford, G.W.; Egger, M.; Siegfried, N. Antiretroviral therapy for prevention of HIV transmission in hiv-discordant couples. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Crosby, R.A.; Geter, A.; DiClemente, R.J.; Salazar, L.F. Acceptability of Condoms, Circumcision and PrEP among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Descriptive Study Based on Effectiveness and Cost. Vaccines 2014, 2, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines2010129
Crosby RA, Geter A, DiClemente RJ, Salazar LF. Acceptability of Condoms, Circumcision and PrEP among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Descriptive Study Based on Effectiveness and Cost. Vaccines. 2014; 2(1):129-137. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines2010129
Chicago/Turabian StyleCrosby, Richard A., Angelica Geter, Ralph J. DiClemente, and Laura F. Salazar. 2014. "Acceptability of Condoms, Circumcision and PrEP among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Descriptive Study Based on Effectiveness and Cost" Vaccines 2, no. 1: 129-137. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines2010129
APA StyleCrosby, R. A., Geter, A., DiClemente, R. J., & Salazar, L. F. (2014). Acceptability of Condoms, Circumcision and PrEP among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Descriptive Study Based on Effectiveness and Cost. Vaccines, 2(1), 129-137. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines2010129