Next Article in Journal
Infection Prevention and Control: Practical and Educational Advances
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Acting Injectable Drugs for HIV-1 Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: Considerations for Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Associations between Awareness of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and Prevalence of STIs among Sub-Saharan African Men and Women
Previous Article in Special Issue
Suboptimal Follow-Up on HIV Test Results among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Community-Based Study in Two U.S. Cities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
TropicalMed
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/tropicalmed7080146
tropicalmed-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Prevalence and Determinants of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing among a Sample of Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-Naïve Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States

by
Yu Liu
1,*,
Mary Hawkins
2,
Amna Osman
2 and
Chen Zhang
3
1
Division of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, 256 Crittenden Blvd., Ste. 3305, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
2
Nashville Council on AIDS, Resources, Education and Support (CARES), Nashville, TN 37204, USA
3
School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7(8), 146; https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080146
Submission received: 24 June 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 23 July 2022 / Published: 26 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue HIV Testing, Prevention and Care Cascade)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Self-initiated Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) testing after potential sexual exposure to HIV (i.e., exposure-influenced HIV testing) has high utility in detecting individuals with the highest probabilities of HIV seroconversion. We conducted a cross-sectional study among a sample of sexually active, pre/post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP/PEP)-naïve young men who have sex with men (YMSM) in two US cities to assess the determinants (e.g., demographic, psychosocial, sexual, substance use, and HIV prevention characteristics) of exposure-influenced HIV testing (never/rarely vs. mostly/always) in their lifetime. Of 261 YMSM, only 26.5% reported mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced prior to the study. Multivariable analyses showed that younger age, sexual orientation non-disclosure, perceived HIV stigma, internalized homophobia, lower general resilience, and lower social support were associated with a lower likelihood of mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. YMSM who never/rarely sought exposure-influenced HIV testing were more likely to use recreational drugs before sex, binge alcohol, and have group sex; while less likely to be aware of PrEP, test for sexually transmitted infections, or use condoms compared to those mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. Exposure-influenced HIV testing is suboptimal among YMSM with elevated risk for HIV. Our findings provide important implications for designing targeted interventions to promote exposure-influenced HIV testing among high-risk YMSM.

1. Introduction

Young men who have sex with men (YMSM) aged 18–35 years accounted for more than 50% of all new Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infections in the United States (US) in 2019 [1,2]. HIV testing is crucial to the implementation of effective HIV treatment and intervention strategies, such as “test-and-treat” for newly HIV-diagnosed individuals and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) linkage for those with high risk for HIV [3,4,5,6]. Without timely HIV screening, the undiagnosed infections may further exacerbate HIV transmissions among YMSM via condomless sex and result in poor HIV care continuum outcomes among HIV-positive YMSM who are not effectively linked to care or treated [7,8].
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends annual HIV testing, with some HIV prevention experts suggesting more frequent HIV testing (e.g., every 3–6 months) for sexually active YMSM irrespective of reported risk [9,10,11,12]. Despite the expansion of various HIV testing programs for YMSM, HIV testing remains suboptimal among this subgroup [13,14]. One meta-analysis showed that only 60% of 83,286 racially diverse YMSM recruited from the internet had tested for HIV in the past 12 months [15]. Another meta-analysis among 18,253 young black men who have sex with men (MSM) found only 42% reporting HIV testing every 3–6 months in the past year [16]. A national surveillance study estimated that 20% of 10,104 MSM from 23 US cities were living with undiagnosed HIV [17].
Although numerous studies have assessed the prevalence and determinants of HIV testing among YMSM in the US [18,19,20,21,22], no study has been conducted to explore this topic by differentiating the contexts in which HIV testing is initiated. For instance, whether HIV testing is passive due to the requirement of research participation, PrEP candidacy evaluation, or financial incentives (i.e., passive HIV testing); more importantly, whether the HIV testing decision is actively made due to the influence of recent sexual exposure to HIV (i.e., exposure-influenced HIV testing). Passive and active (i.e., exposure-influenced) HIV testing can have substantially varying utilities for HIV detection because the latter is more likely to capture individuals with the highest probabilities of HIV seroconversion, particularly for those who are PrEP/PEP-naïve [23,24,25,26]. While engaging YMSM in passive HIV testing regardless of sexual risks is a vital strategy for detecting new HIV infections, strategies and resources should also be prioritized to educate and promote exposure-influenced HIV testing among high-risk YMSM, which is essential to bolster US CDC′s overarching HIV testing guidelines and objectives.
The primary purpose of this study is to bridge the knowledge gap of exposure-influenced HIV testing among YMSM in the US. Therefore, we conducted an epidemiologic study among a sample of non-PrEP/PEP using, high-risk YMSM recruited from two US cities with the following objectives: (1) to assess the prevalence of exposure-influenced HIV testing; (2) to explore relevant demographic, psychosocial and behavioral correlates; (3) to evaluate the self-report intention of future exposure-influenced HIV testing uptake; and (4) to understand the barriers/facilitators of seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. Evidence from the present study may help inform the design and implementation of future targeted interventions to promote exposure-influenced HIV testing among YMSM with elevated risk for HIV.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

A cross-sectional (May 2019–May 2020) study was conducted among YMSM living in two US cities (e.g., Nashville, Tennessee, and Buffalo, New York). Details of the materials and methods have been documented elsewhere [27,28,29]. In short, we partnered with the Nashville Council on AIDS, Resources, Education, and Support (Nashville CARES) to recruit participants via flier distribution, peer referral, community outreach, and social media advertisement. In Buffalo, we collaborated with Evergreen Health Services to recruit participants from community HIV clinics by approaching potential participants during their walk-ins. Participants were eligible if they met the following criteria: 18–35 years of age, residents of Nashville or Buffalo, cis-gender man, HIV-negative or status-unknown, had at least one episode of condomless anal sex with a man in the past 12 months, and can read/understand English.

2.2. Data collection and Measures

A 40-min internet-assisted questionnaire survey was administered to the consented YMSM. Participants were allowed to complete the questionnaire onsite in a private, tablet-equipped room or have the research staff send a secure survey link to them to complete the survey elsewhere. We collected data on: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, race, employment status, educational attainment, annual personal income, sexual orientation, health insurance); (2) psychosocial factors (e.g., HIV stigma, internalized homonegativity, subjective loneliness, perceived social support, resilience, food security, and housing stability) [29]; (3) risky behaviors (e.g., venues for finding sex partners, patterns of tobacco, recreational drug use, alcohol misuse patterns, condomless insertive/receptive anal sex (CIAS/CRAS), oral/group sex with men, and history of sexually transmitted infections (STI)); and (4) HIV prevention indicators (e.g., history of HIV/STI testing, the intention of future exposure-influenced HIV testing (high/moderate vs. low/no), perceived HIV testing barriers/facilitators, PrEP awareness, and condom use self-efficacy). The primary outcome variable was the tendency of exposure-influenced HIV testing uptake. We asked the participants how often in their lifetime had they purposively sought HIV testing after engagement in one or more (i.e., consecutive) types/episodes of the following risk behaviors: (1) CIAS/CRAS with a casual sex partner, (2) CIAS/CRAS with a known HIV-positive partner (i.e., HIV-positivity disclosed by the partners regardless of the knowledge of viral suppression status), (3) condomless oral sex with a causal or known HIV-positive partner, (4) group sex, and (5) alcohol/drug use before sex. Responses were initially recorded as never, rarely, mostly, and always, and further dichotomized as never/rarely (i.e., infrequent exposure-influenced testers) vs. mostly/always (i.e., frequent exposure-influenced testers) to increase the sample size in each response category.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analyses (frequency distribution or central tendency) were conducted for all variables. Bivariate analyses (e.g., chi-square/Fisher′s exact tests and Mann–Whitney U tests) were conducted to compare the differences in demographics, psychosocial determinants, risk behaviors, and selected HIV prevention indicators between frequent exposure-influenced testers (mostly/always) and infrequent exposure-influenced testers (never/rarely). To assess the independent associations of demographic and psychosocial predictors of exposure-influenced HIV testing, variables at the significance of p < 0.2 were selected to fit a log-linked Poisson regression model with robust standard errors to estimate the adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), followed by a backward elimination procedure to retain factors at the significance of p < 0.05 in the final multivariable model. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0TM (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

2.4. Ethical Considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment. The study procedure and protocol were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Rochester and the University at Buffalo.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

A total of 415 eligible YMSM agreed to participate in the study, and 347 enrolled and completed the survey in full (response rate: 83.6%). Of the 347 YMSM, 261 self-reported as non-PrEP/PEP users and were included for analyses in the current study. The median age of the analytical sample (N = 261) was 25 years (interquartile range: 22–27 years), with 68.6% being Black, 66.3% being employed, 32.9% having college and above education, 48.7% reporting < USD 20 k annual personal income, 79.3% being health insured, and 71.6% reporting as gay/homosexual (Table 1).

3.2. Demographic and Psychosocial Correlates of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing

We found only 26.5% (n = 69) reported mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing (i.e., as frequent exposure-influenced testers). Compared to frequent exposure-influenced testers, infrequent exposure-influenced testers (i.e., those who never/rarely tested) were more likely (p < 0.05) to be younger, younger when they first had CIAS/CRAS with men, not disclose their sexual orientation to healthcare providers, use internet/website to find sex partners, report a higher level of internalized homophobia, and report a lower level of perceived social support. Multivariable analyses showed that older age (25–35 vs. 18–24 years; aPR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.12–4.97), sexual orientation disclosure to healthcare providers (yes vs. no; aPR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.29–5.36), a higher level of perceived social support (one unit increase in the perceived social support score; PR = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01–1.03), and a higher level of general resilience (one unit increase in the general resilience score; PR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01–1.07) were associated with a higher likelihood of mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing; while YMSM who had moderate/high HIV risk perception (vs. no/low risk perception; aPR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13–0.67), a higher level of perceived HIV stigma (one unit increase in the perceived HIV stigma score; aPR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84–0.96), and a higher level of internalized homophobia (one unit increase in the internalized homophobia score; aPR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.82–0.98) were more likely to never/rarely seek exposure-influenced HIV testing in their lifetime (Table 1).

3.3. Comparison of Behavioral Characteristics

Compared to frequent exposure-influenced testers (Table 2), infrequent testers were more likely to report recent (i.e., past 6-month) recreational drug use before sex (40.6% vs. 30.4%; p = 0.048), recent alcohol binge drinking (78.6% vs. 53.6%; p < 0.001), and recent engagement in group sex (27.1% vs. 14.5%; p = 0.038). On the contrary, frequent exposure-influenced testers were more likely to have ever tested for STIs (95.6% vs. 80.7%; p = 0.003), have a history of STIs (39.1% vs. 28.7%; p = 0.049), have more lifetime HIV testing (median times: 10 vs. 3; p < 0.001), have a higher level of condom use self-efficacy (median score: 33 vs. 29; p = 0.013), and be aware of PrEP (87.0% vs. 70.3%; p = 0.006) compared to their infrequent tester counterparts.

3.4. The Intention of Seeking Future Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing

Figure 1 shows the proportions of YMSM reporting high/moderate intention in initiating exposure-influenced HIV testing in the future. Overall, frequent exposure-influenced testers were more likely (p < 0.05) to report high/moderate intention to seek future HIV testing after engaging in all hypothetical risky sex scenarios. Specifically, among previous frequent exposure-influenced testers, having CIAS with a casual male partner represents the most likely scenario to seek future exposure-influenced HIV testing (69.6%), followed by having CRAS with men (66.6%) and group sex (59.4%). Among infrequent exposure-influenced testers, having CIAS/CRAS with HIV-positive partners was associated with the highest proportion (47.8%) of YMSM reporting high/moderate intention to test for HIV, followed by having group sex (46.3%) and CRAS with a casual male partner (39.5%). Among both frequent and infrequent exposure-influenced testers, having CIAS with a regular male partner was associated with the lowest proportion (47.8% and 26.1%, respectively) reporting high/moderate intention to seek subsequent HIV testing.

3.5. Barriers and Facilitators of Seeking Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing

Figure 2 presents the top-five cited barriers to and facilitators of seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. Homophobia and HIV-related stigma represent the most cited barrier (67.3%), followed by testing-related anxiety/fear (62.5%), HIV testing accessibility (58.7%), sexual inactivity (48.9%), and low HIV risk perception (32.5%). Among all the facilitators, participants cited peer support/navigation as the most important driver (72.5%), followed by HIV testing descriptive norms in the community (63.5%), individualized HIV testing promotion intervention (61.1%), education of risk/benefit of HIV testing (56.6%), and the support of using HIV self-testing (42.3%).

4. Discussion

HIV testing uptake represents a critical step to reducing onward HIV transmissions through undiagnosed infections and enhancing the continuum of HIV care outcomes (e.g., rapid linkage-to-care, HIV treatment initiation, and viral suppression) for YMSM at high risk for HIV [4,30,31]. With the increase in the availability and accessibility of HIV testing services, we have observed a steadily increasing trend of HIV testing uptake among YMSM of all racial/ethnic groups in recent years in the US [1]. Our study found that 91.5%, 76.3%, and 68.2% of the participants reported HIV testing in their lifetime, the past 12 months, and the past 6 months, respectively (data not shown in tables). This finding was consistent with a nationally representative YMSM study—88.2% tested in their lifetime, 67.4% tested in the past 12 months, and 63.4% tested in the past 6 months, respectively) [16]. In the meantime, our results were in line with findings from numerous studies showing a decreasing HIV testing prevalence from lifetime to more recent time windows (e.g., past 3–6 months), highlighting the need for continuous efforts to strengthen recent and frequent HIV testing among YMSM in the US [7,15,16,32,33].
To our best knowledge, this is the first epidemiologic study to explore the prevalence, psychosocial/behavioral correlates, and barriers/facilitators of exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of non-PrEP/PEP using YMSM in the US. The current study found a substantially low proportion (26.5%) of YMSM reporting mostly/always seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. The low prevalence of exposure-influenced HIV testing has several important implications. From the standpoint of HIV prevention, exposure-influenced HIV testing must be strengthened because it represents a vital HIV testing mechanism to cost-effectively detect individuals with high HIV risks (i.e., sexually active, non-PrEP/PEP using YMSM) for timely linkage to HIV prevention or care. From the perspective of research design and result interpretation, HIV prevention scientists should avoid being over-optimistic when interpreting the seemingly high HIV testing prevalence in an observational study. The high HIV testing prevalence can likely be “inflated” by individuals who frequently test for HIV but are not at high risk for HIV (e.g., the “worried well,” consistent PrEP users, low-risk individuals who frequently participate in HIV research) [23]. Researchers should carefully craft relevant questionnaires to specify the contexts in which an HIV testing is initiated and use caution when calculating relevant HIV testing prevalence across various participants (e.g., PrEP users vs. non-users).
We found that MSM of younger ages were less likely to actively seek HIV testing after sexual exposure to HIV, which is consistent with previous studies showing that YMSM (vs. older MSM) were less representative in HIV prevention uptake (e.g., HIV testing, PrEP) [34,35,36]. Studies have also shown that the lower likelihood of HIV testing among YMSM could be partially attributable to low HIV risk perception, less experience navigating various HIV prevention services, and higher substance use [37,38,39]. These explanations are also supported by our previous studies with the same study participants [27,28,29]. Surprisingly, we found that HIV risk perception was negatively associated with exposure-influenced HIV testing uptake. This finding contradicts previous studies showing HIV risk perception as a strong predictor of frequent HIV testing uptake among YMSM [40,41,42]. We suspect that the association between risk perception and HIV prevention uptake may be mediated by various psychosocial factors (e.g., anxiety, stress, homophobia and stigma), which are likely to erode the psychological capacity of HIV testing decision making among some YMSM, despite the perception of higher risk for HIV [27,43,44]. In particular, HIV/gay-related stigma may significantly exacerbate HIV prevention uptake among YMSM [45,46]. In our study, perceived HIV/gay-related discrimination and stigma at HIV testing sites were cited by 67% of the study participants as the major barrier to seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing. Therefore, hospitals/clinics and local HIV prevention centers must build a more affirmative, holistic, and safe HIV testing environment to help alleviate concerns of intersectional HIV/gay stigma, HIV testing-related anxiety, and facilitate sexual orientation disclosure to healthcare providers—all critical factors to promote HIV testing among YMSM [47,48]. Last, we found that individualized support across various physical, normative, psychological, and environmental domains to promote resiliency is cited as an essential facilitator to promote HIV testing uptake among YMSM. Future studies should further explore sources across multiple socio-ecological levels to guide the design and implementation of multidimensional social support and resilience-based HIV prevention programs to help address various psychosocial vulnerabilities and promote exposure-influenced HIV testing uptake among YMSM [49].
In line with findings from previous studies conducted among MSM in Tennessee and New York [50,51,52,53,54,55], a high prevalence of substance use (e.g., alcohol, recreational drugs, and tobacco) and condomless anal sex (e.g., CIAS and CRAS) was observed among our study participants recruited in these areas. We also found comparable sexual risk portfolios between participants who never/rarely and mostly/always sought exposure-influenced HIV testing in the study, with those never/rarely seeking exposure-influenced HIV testing showing a higher prevalence in alcohol binging, recreational drug use before sex, and group sex—all established risk factors for HIV acquisition. The mechanism of the association between substance use-induced HIV risks, and the lower propensity in seeking HIV testing can be complex in different contexts. In this study, infrequent exposure-influenced HIV testers were more likely to report a lower level of resilience and perceived social support and a higher level of subjective loneliness. Evidence suggests these factors are important predictors of substance use, subsequent sexual disinhibition, and impaired HIV prevention decision making [34,56,57]. We found that YMSM who engaged more frequently in previous HIV/STD testing were more likely to seek exposure-influenced HIV testing. We also found that frequent exposure-influenced HIV testers reported higher intention to seek future HIV testing than their infrequent tester counterparts. These findings are well supported by the self-efficacy theory, in which mastery experience (i.e., previous experience may boost confidence in future events) represents a key theoretical construct in behavioral prediction [58]. Future theory-based interventions should capitalize on personal relevance and enhance intrinsic motivation for HIV prevention uptake among YMSM.
The major strength of this study includes the first assessment of exposure-influenced HIV testing and relevant intervenable correlates among a community-based sample consisting of a large presence of racial minority men (e.g., young black MSM) at high risk for HIV. There are also limitations to the study. First, the generalizability of the study findings is limited due to the small sample size of participants recruited from two US cities. Second, the study′s cross-sectional nature may not reveal the temporal relationship of the observed associations; therefore, the causality of our findings should be interpreted with caution. Third, self-report data might be subjected to recall bias and social desirability, resulting in underreporting of sensitive questions (e.g., substance use, sexual history). However, we expected that the impact of such bias was minimal based on how we collected the data (e.g., anonymous and self-administered in a private location/facility). Fourth, the outcome assessment may be limited by only ascertaining the lifetime tendency (e.g., never, rarely, mostly, always) of exposure-influenced HIV testing uptake rather than the frequency (e.g., count) or event-level testing (i.e., asking whether or not an HIV testing was initiated after engagement in a specific risky sexual event). Despite this limitation, we considered that the tendency assessment would be less affected by recall bias than asking the participants to recall any specific count/events. Last, due to the small sample size, we were limited to performing various stratified analyses (e.g., sexual history, race, number of lifetime sexual partners) to further explore the patterns of exposure-influenced HIV testing within each YMSM subgroup.

5. Conclusions

HIV testing represents an essential gateway for PrEP initiation and HIV care engagement among individuals at elevated risk for HIV. Promoting active, self-initiated HIV testing for high-risk YMSM (e.g., PrEP/PEP-naïve YMSM who frequently engage in risky sexual episodes) is particularly important, as it allows those with the highest probability of HIV seroconversion to be cost-effectively detected and linked to care for preventing further HIV transmission among the MSM community. However, we found that this type of active HIV testing uptake (i.e., exposure-influenced HIV testing) was low among high-risk YMSM. Our findings shed important light on targeted intervention opportunities to help strengthen exposure-influenced HIV testing among YMSM in the US.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L. and C.Z.; formal analysis, Y.L.; funding acquisition, Y.L. and C.Z.; methodology, Y.L. and C.Z.; resources, Y.L., C.Z., M.H. and A.O.; writing—original draft, Y.L. and C.Z.; writing—review and editing, Y.L., C.Z., M.H. and A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the University of Rochester School of Medicine and School of Nursing Joint Award for HIV Research Excellence.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Rochester (RSRB00071128; Date of approval: 4 May 2018) and the University at Buffalo (STUDY00003368; Date of approval: 22 March 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Limited de-identified raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would also like to thank all study participants and staff from the Nashville Council on AIDS, Resources, Education and Support, MyHouse (e.g., My Voice Community Engagement and Research Council) in Nashville, and Evergreen Health Services in Buffalo for facilitating the participant recruitment and data collection process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019; Volume 32. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html (accessed on 10 May 2021).
  2. CDC Fact Sheet. The Nation’s Approach to HIV Prevention for Gay and Bisexual Men. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/approach-to-hiv-prevention-508.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2021).
  3. Marano, M.; Stein, R.; Song, W.; Patel, D.; Taylor-Aidoo, N.; Xu, S.; Scales, L. HIV Testing, Linkage to HIV Medical Care, and Interviews for Partner Services Among Black Men Who Have Sex with Men–Non-Health Care Facilities, 20 Southern U.S. Jurisdictions, 2016. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2018, 67, 778–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gardner, E.M.; McLees, M.P.; Steiner, J.F.; Del Rio, C.; Burman, W.J. The spectrum of engagement in HIV care and its relevance to test-and-treat strategies for prevention of HIV infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011, 52, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mugavero, M.J.; Amico, K.R.; Westfall, A.O.; Crane, H.M.; Zinski, A.; Willig, J.H.; Dombrowski, J.C.; Norton, W.E.; Raper, J.L.; Kitahata, M.M. Early retention in HIV care and viral load suppression: Implications for a test and treat approach to HIV prevention. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2012, 59, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Liu, A.; Cohen, S.; Follansbee, S.; Cohan, D.; Weber, S.; Sachdev, D.; Buchbinder, S. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014, 11, e1001613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Campbell, C.K.; Lippman, S.A.; Moss, N.; Lightfoot, M. Strategies to increase HIV testing among MSM: A synthesis of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2018, 22, 2387–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, A.; Colfax, G.; Cohen, S.; Bacon, O.; Kolber, M.; Amico, K.; Mugavero, M.; Grant, R.; Buchbinder, S. The spectrum of engagement in HIV prevention: Proposal for a PrEP cascade. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence, Miami, FL, USA, 3 June 2012; pp. 3–5. [Google Scholar]
  9. Branson, B.M.; Handsfield, H.H.; Lampe, M.A.; Janssen, R.S.; Taylor, A.W.; Lyss, S.B.; Clark, J.E. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in healthcare settings. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. Recomm. Rep. 2006, 55, 1-CE-4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Beckwith, C.G.; Flanigan, T.P.; Del Rio, C.; Simmons, E.; Wing, E.J.; Carpenter, C.C.; Bartlett, J.G. It is time to implement routine, not risk-based, HIV testing. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 40, 1037–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moyer, V.A. Screening for HIV: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2013, 159, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Vodstrcil, L.A.; Fairley, C.K.; Chen, M.Y.; Denham, I. Risk-based HIV testing of men who have sex with men would result in missed HIV diagnoses. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2012, 39, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sanchez, T.H.; Zlotorzynska, M.; Sineath, R.C.; Kahle, E.; Tregear, S.; Sullivan, P.S. National trends in sexual behavior, substance use and HIV testing among United States men who have sex with men recruited online, 2013 through 2017. AIDS Behav. 2018, 22, 2413–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Frye, V.; Wilton, L.; Hirshfield, S.; Chiasson, M.A.; Lucy, D.; Usher, D.; McCrossin, J.; Greene, E.; Koblin, B.; Team, A.A.M.S. Preferences for HIV test characteristics among young, Black Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) and transgender women: Implications for consistent HIV testing. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Noble, M.; Jones, A.M.; Bowles, K.; DiNenno, E.A.; Tregear, S.J. HIV testing among internet-using MSM in the United States: Systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2017, 21, 561–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, Y.; Silenzio, V.M.; Nash, R.; Luther, P.; Bauermeister, J.; Vermund, S.H.; Zhang, C. Suboptimal Recent and Regular HIV Testing Among Black Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: Implications From a Meta-Analysis. JAIDS J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2019, 81, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kanny, D.; Jeffries IV, W.L.; Chapin-Bardales, J.; Denning, P.; Cha, S.; Finlayson, T.; Wejnert, C.; Abrego, M.; Al-Tayyib, A.; Anderson, B. Racial/ethnic disparities in HIV preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men—23 urban areas, 2017. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019, 68, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oster, A.M.; Johnson, C.H.; Le, B.C.; Balaji, A.B.; Finlayson, T.J.; Lansky, A.; Mermin, J.; Valleroy, L.; MacKellar, D.; Behel, S. Trends in HIV prevalence and HIV testing among young MSM: Five United States cities, 1994–2011. AIDS Behav. 2014, 18, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Control, C.f.D.; Prevention. HIV testing among men who have sex with men--21 cities, United States, 2008. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011, 60, 694–699. [Google Scholar]
  20. Paz-Bailey, G.; Hall, H.I.; Wolitski, R.J.; Prejean, J.; Van Handel, M.M.; Le, B.; LaFlam, M.; Koenig, L.J.; Mendoza, M.C.B.; Rose, C. HIV testing and risk behaviors among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men—United States. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2013, 62, 958. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sarno, E.L.; Bettin, E.; Jozsa, K.; Newcomb, M.E. Sexual health of rural and urban young male couples in the United States: Differences in HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis use, and condom use. AIDS Behav. 2021, 25, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Creasy, S.L.; Henderson, E.R.; Bukowski, L.A.; Matthews, D.D.; Stall, R.D.; Hawk, M.E. Hiv testing and art adherence among unstably housed black men who have sex with men in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2019, 23, 3044–3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, Y.; Qian, H.-Z.; Ruan, Y.; Wu, P.; Osborn, C.Y.; Jia, Y.; Yin, L.; Lu, H.; He, X.; Shao, Y. Frequent HIV testing: Impact on HIV risk among Chinese men who have sex with men. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2016, 72, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. O’Byrne, P. HIV self-testing: A review and analysis to guide HIV prevention policy. Public Health Nurs. 2021, 38, 885–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Adebayo, O.W.; Salerno, J.P. Facilitators, barriers, and outcomes of self-initiated HIV testing: An integrative literature Review. Res. Theory Nurs. Pract. 2019, 33, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Adebayo, O.W.; Williams, J.R.; Garcia, A. “The right place and the right time”: A qualitative study of the decision-making process of self-initiated HIV testing among young adults. Res. Nurs. Health 2020, 43, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, Y.; Brown, L.; Przybyla, S.; Bleasdale, J.; Mitchell, J.; Zhang, C. Characterizing racial differences of mental health burdens, psychosocial determinants, and impacts on HIV prevention outcomes among young men who have sex with men: A community-based study in two US cities. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 2021, 9, 1114–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, Y.; Bleasdale, J.; Przybyla, S.; Higgins, M.C.; Zhang, C. Racial Variations in Psychosocial Vulnerabilities Linked to Differential Poppers Use and Associated HIV-Related Outcomes among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Study in Two US Metropolitan Areas. Subst. Use Misuse 2022, 57, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Liu, Y.; Russ, S.; Mitchell, J.; Przybyla, S.; Zhang, C. Assessing the Determinants of Quality of Life and the Impact on HIV Prevention Measures among HIV-Negative and Status-Unknown Young Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Study in Two US Metropolitan Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Granich, R.M.; Gilks, C.F.; Dye, C.; De Cock, K.M.; Williams, B.G. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: A mathematical model. Lancet 2009, 373, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Coates, T.J.; Richter, L.; Caceres, C. Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: How to make them work better. Lancet 2008, 372, 669–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Furegato, M.; Mitchell, H.; Ogaz, D.; Woodhall, S.; Connor, N.; Hughes, G.; Nardone, A.; Mohammed, H. The role of frequent HIV testing in diagnosing HIV in men who have sex with men. HIV Med. 2018, 19, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mitchell, J.; Torres, M.B.; Asmar, L.; Danh, T.; Horvath, K.J. Developing sustainable and impactful mobile phone HIV testing interventions for spanish-speaking men who have sex with men in the United States: Lessons learned from informative interviews. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018, 4, e8992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Mustanski, B.S.; Newcomb, M.E.; Du Bois, S.N.; Garcia, S.C.; Grov, C. HIV in young men who have sex with men: A review of epidemiology, risk and protective factors, and interventions. J. Sex Res. 2011, 48, 218–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kubicek, K.; Arauz-Cuadra, C.; Kipke, M.D. Attitudes and perceptions of biomedical HIV prevention methods: Voices from young men who have sex with men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2015, 44, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Eaton, L.A.; Driffin, D.D.; Bauermeister, J.; Smith, H.; Conway-Washington, C. Minimal awareness and stalled uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among at risk, HIV-negative, black men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2015, 29, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Rhodes, N.; Pivik, K. Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 923–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Benotsch, E.G.; Snipes, D.J.; Martin, A.M.; Bull, S.S. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. J. Adolesc. Health 2013, 52, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fields, E.L.; Bogart, L.M.; Smith, K.C.; Malebranche, D.J.; Ellen, J.; Schuster, M.A. “I always felt I had to prove my manhood”: Homosexuality, masculinity, gender role strain, and HIV risk among young Black men who have sex with men. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Storholm, E.D.; Volk, J.E.; Marcus, J.L.; Silverberg, M.J.; Satre, D.D. Risk perception, sexual behaviors, and PrEP adherence among substance-using men who have sex with men: A qualitative study. Prev. Sci. 2017, 18, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Clifton, S.; Nardone, A.; Field, N.; Mercer, C.H.; Tanton, C.; Macdowall, W.; Johnson, A.M.; Sonnenberg, P. HIV testing, risk perception, and behaviour in the British population. AIDS 2016, 30, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Scheim, A.I.; Travers, R. Barriers and facilitators to HIV and sexually transmitted infections testing for gay, bisexual, and other transgender men who have sex with men. AIDS Care 2017, 29, 990–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Elkington, K.S.; Bauermeister, J.A.; Zimmerman, M.A. Psychological distress, substance use, and HIV/STI risk behaviors among youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 2010, 39, 514–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bauermeister, J.A.; Muessig, K.E.; Flores, D.D.; LeGrand, S.; Choi, S.; Dong, W.; Harper, G.W.; Hightow-Weidman, L.B. Stigma diminishes the protective effect of social support on psychological distress among young black men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ. Prev. 2018, 30, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Golub, S.A.; Gamarel, K.E. The impact of anticipated HIV stigma on delays in HIV testing behaviors: Findings from a community-based sample of men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York City. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2013, 27, 621–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mannheimer, S.; Wang, L.; Wilton, L.; Tieu, H.; Del Rio, C.; Buchbinder, S.; Fields, S.; Glick, S.; Cummings, V.; Eshleman, S. Infrequent HIV testing and late HIV diagnosis are common among a cohort of Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) in six US cities. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2014, 67, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Levy, M.E.; Wilton, L.; Phillips, G.; Glick, S.N.; Kuo, I.; Brewer, R.A.; Elliott, A.; Watson, C.; Magnus, M. Understanding structural barriers to accessing HIV testing and prevention services among black men who have sex with men (BMSM) in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2014, 18, 972–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Eaton, L.A.; Driffin, D.D.; Kegler, C.; Smith, H.; Conway-Washington, C.; White, D.; Cherry, C. The role of stigma and medical mistrust in the routine health care engagement of black men who have sex with men. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, e75–e82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brown, L.L.; Martin, E.G.; Knudsen, H.K.; Gotham, H.J.; Garner, B.R. Resilience-Focused HIV Care to Promote Psychological Well-Being During COVID-19 and Other Catastrophes. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McGoy, S.L.; Pettit, A.C.; Morrison, M.; Alexander, L.R.; Johnson, P.; Williams, B.; Banister, D.; Young, M.K.; Wester, C.; Rebeiro, P.F. Use of social network strategy among young black men who have sex with men for HIV testing, linkage to care, and reengagement in care, Tennessee, 2013–2016. Public Health Rep. 2018, 133, 43S–51S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barnes, S.L.; Hollingsworth, C. Spirituality and social media: The search for support among Black men who have sex with men in Tennessee. J. Homosex. 2020, 67, 79–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gebru, N.M.; Benvenuti, M.C.; Rowland, B.H.; Kalkat, M.; Chauca, P.G.; Leeman, R.F. Relationships among Substance Use, Sociodemographics, Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Awareness and Related Attitudes among Young Adult Men Who Have Sex with Men. Subst. Use Misuse 2022, 57, 786–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stults, C.B.; Javdani, S.; Greenbaum, C.A.; Kapadia, F.; Halkitis, P.N. Intimate partner violence and substance use risk among young men who have sex with men: The P18 cohort study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015, 154, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rivera, A.V.; Harriman, G.; Carrillo, S.A.; Braunstein, S.L. Trends in methamphetamine use among men who have sex with men in New York City, 2004–2017. AIDS Behav. 2021, 25, 1210–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Grov, C. HIV risk and substance use in men who have sex with men surveyed in bathhouses, bars/clubs, and on Craigslist. org: Venue of recruitment matters. AIDS Behav. 2012, 16, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Vosburgh, H.; Mansergh, G.; Sullivan, P.S.; Purcell, D.W. A review of the literature on event-level substance use and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2012, 16, 1394–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. 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. 2014, 18, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.H.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. J. Cogn. Psychother. 1999, 13, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tropicalmed 07 00146 g001 550
Figure 1. Proportions of YMSM reporting high/moderate (vs. low/no) intention of seeking future exposure-influenced HIV testing by various risky sex scenarios among previously frequent (n = 69) and infrequent (n = 192) exposure-influenced testers. Note: 1—condomless insertive anal sex with a regular male partner; 2—condomless receptive anal sex with a regular male partner; 3—condomless insertive anal sex with a casual male partner; 4—condomless receptive anal sex with a casual male partner; 5—condomless insertive/receptive anal sex with a known HIV-positive male partner; 6—group sex with men; 7—condomless oral sex with men. Statistical significance (α = 0.05) of comparing the proportion of previously frequent vs. infrequent risk-motivated HIV testing YMSM who reported high/moderate confidence in seeking future risk-motivated HIV testing by various risky sex scenarios: p < 0.01 (1, 2, 3 and 4); p < 0.05 (6, 7).
Figure 1. Proportions of YMSM reporting high/moderate (vs. low/no) intention of seeking future exposure-influenced HIV testing by various risky sex scenarios among previously frequent (n = 69) and infrequent (n = 192) exposure-influenced testers. Note: 1—condomless insertive anal sex with a regular male partner; 2—condomless receptive anal sex with a regular male partner; 3—condomless insertive anal sex with a casual male partner; 4—condomless receptive anal sex with a casual male partner; 5—condomless insertive/receptive anal sex with a known HIV-positive male partner; 6—group sex with men; 7—condomless oral sex with men. Statistical significance (α = 0.05) of comparing the proportion of previously frequent vs. infrequent risk-motivated HIV testing YMSM who reported high/moderate confidence in seeking future risk-motivated HIV testing by various risky sex scenarios: p < 0.01 (1, 2, 3 and 4); p < 0.05 (6, 7).
Tropicalmed 07 00146 g001
Tropicalmed 07 00146 g002 550
Figure 2. Summary of top identified (a) barriers to and (b) facilitators of enhancing exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve YMSM in two US urban areas (N = 261).
Figure 2. Summary of top identified (a) barriers to and (b) facilitators of enhancing exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve YMSM in two US urban areas (N = 261).
Tropicalmed 07 00146 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic and psychosocial correlates of exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve young men who have sex with men recruited from two US urban areas (N = 261).
Table 1. Demographic and psychosocial correlates of exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve young men who have sex with men recruited from two US urban areas (N = 261).
Characteristics Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing a
Total (N = 261)Never/Rarely
(N = 192)		Always/Mostly (N = 69)p-ValueaPR (95% CI) b
n (%) or Median (IQR)n (%) or Median (IQR)n (%) or Median (IQR)
Age (years) 0.005
        18–24123 (47.5)101(52.6)23(33.3) Reference
        25–35137 (52.5)91(47.4)46(66.7) 2.35 (1.12–4.97)
Age of first condomless anal sex (years) 0.049
        <18132 (50.6)104(54.2)28(40.6)
        ≥18129 (49.4)88(45.8)41(59.4)
Race 0.583
        Non-Hispanic white61 (23.4)48(25.0)13(18.8)
        Non-Hispanic black179 (68.6)129(67.2)50(72.5)
        Other †21 (8.0)15(7.8)6(8.7)
Employment 0.077
        Currently employed 173 (66.3)124(64.6)49(71.0)
        Currently unemployed43 (16.5)29(15.1)14(20.3)
        Currently a student45 (17.2)39(20.3)6(8.7)
Education 0.141
        High school or lower65 (24.9)52(27.1)13(18.9)
        Some college110 (42.2)83(43.2)27(39.1)
        College and above86 (32.9)57(29.7)29(42.0)
Annual personal income (US dollars) 0.424
        <USD 20,000127 (48.7)98(51.0)29(42.0)
        USD 20,000–40,00085 (32.6)59(30.7)26(37.7)
        >USD 40,00049 (18.7)35(18.3)14(20.3)
Sexual orientation 0.117
        Homosexual/gay187 (71.6)131(68.2)56(81.2)
        Heterosexual32 (12.3)27(14.1)5(7.2)
        Bisexual42 (16.1)34(17.7)8(11.6)
Sexual orientation disclosure to healthcare professionals 0.006
        No75 (28.7)64(33.3)11(15.9) Reference
        Yes186 (71.3)128(66.7)58(84.1) 2.63 (1.29–5.36)
Venues for finding sex partners 0.045
        Gay-frequented venues (bars, clubs, etc.)47 (18.0)35(18.2)12(17.4)
        Internet (Facebook, Reddit, etc.)43 (16.5)38(19.8)5(7.2)
        Geosocial networking app (Grindr, etc.)171 (65.5)119(62.0)52(75.4)
Perception of HIV risk 0.064
        No/low risk198 (75.9)140(72.9)58(84.1) Reference
        Moderate/high risk63 (24.1)52(27.1)11(15.9) 0.29 (0.13,0.67)
Health insurance 0.924
        No54 (20.7)40(20.8)14(20.3)
        Yes207 (79.3)152(79.2)55(79.7)
Housing stability (1–10), median (IQR)9 (6–10)9(5–10)9(7–10)0.617
Food security (0–6), median (IQR)1 (0–4)1(0–4)0(0–2)0.098
Perceived HIV stigma (12–48), median (IQR)30 (24–36)32(29–36)29(24–32)0.0310.89 (0.84–0.96)
Internalized homophobia (4–20), median (IQR)5 (4–12)6(4–12)4(4–8)0.0380.91 (0.82–0.98)
Perceived social support (8–32), median (IQR)74 (57–90)73(57–87)76(62–95)0.0421.02 (1.01–1.03)
Subjective loneliness (19–95), median (IQR)19 (15–23)19(16–23)18(14–23)0.472
General resilience (0–40), median (IQR)29 (23–36)28(22–35)30(26–36)0.0611.03 (1.01–1.07)
Note: aPR, adjusted prevalence ratio; CI, confidence interval; † Including Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Refuse to answer. a Self-initiated HIV testing after engagement in one or more episodes of the following risk behaviors: condomless anal sex (CAS) with a casual sex partner, CAS with a known HIV-positive partner, condomless oral sex with a causal and/or HIV-positive partner, group sex, and/or alcohol/drug intoxication before sex. b Adjusted for variables with a p-value < 0.2 from bivariate analyses and only retaining/reporting the significant correlates (p < 0.05) in the table after backward selection procedure.
Table
Table 2. Comparing the prevalence of substance use, sexual behaviors and HIV prevention indicators by exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve young men who have sex with men recruited from two US urban areas (N = 261).
Table 2. Comparing the prevalence of substance use, sexual behaviors and HIV prevention indicators by exposure-influenced HIV testing among a sample of PrEP/PEP-naïve young men who have sex with men recruited from two US urban areas (N = 261).
Characteristics Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing a
Total (N = 261)Never/Rarely
(N = 192)		Always/Mostly
(N = 69)		p-Value
n (%) or Median (IQR)n (%) or Median (IQR)n (%) or Median (IQR)
Ever used any tobacco product ‡. 0.534
        No61 (23.4)43(22.4)18(26.1)
        Yes200 (76.6)149(77.6)51(73.9)
Ever used any recreational drug † 0.947
        No56 (21.5)41(21.3)15(21.7)
        Yes205 (78.5)151(78.7)54(78.3)
Recreational drug use before sex in the past 6 months 0.048
        No162 (62.1)114(59.4)48(69.6)
        Yes99 (37.9)78(40.6)21(30.4)
Ever drank alcohol 0.478
        No41 (15.7)32(16.7)9(13.0)
        Yes220 (84.3)160(83.3)60(87.0)
Hazardous alcohol drinking in the past 6 months 0.439
        No (AUDIT-C < 4)154 (59.0)116(60.4)38(55.1)
        Yes (AUDIT-C ≥ 4)107 (41.0)76(39.6)31(44.9)
Binge drinking in the past 6 months ※ 0.002
        No73 (28.0)41(21.4)32(46.4)
        Yes188 (72.0)151(78.6)37(53.6)
Alcohol use before sex 0.259
        No121 (46.4)85(44.3)36(52.2)
        Yes140 (53.6)107(55.7)33(47.8)
Lifetime male sex partner 0.863
        <10137 (53.5)100(53.2)37(54.4)
        ≥10119 (46.5)88(46.8)31(45.6)
Had group sex in the past 6 months 0.036
        No194 (76.4)135(72.9)59(85.5)
        Yes60 (23.6)50(27.1)10(14.5)
Had condomless insertive anal sex with men in the past 6 months 0.553
        No114 (45.1)85(46.2)29(42.0)
        Yes139 (54.9)99(53.8)40(58.0)
Had condomless receptive anal sex with men in the past 6 months 0.404
        No125 (49.2)94(50.8)31(44.9)
        Yes129 (50.8)91(49.2)38(55.1)
Had anal and/or oral sex with known HIV-positive partners in the past 6 months 0.321
        No200 (81.3)142(79.8)58(85.3)
        Yes46 (18.7)36(20.2)10(14.7)
Ever had sexually transmitted disease testing 0.003
        No40 (15.3)37 (19.3)3(4.4)
        Yes221 (84.7)155(80.7)66(95.6)
History of sexually transmitted infections § 0.049
        No179 (68.6)137(71.3)42(60.9)
        Yes82 (31.4)55(28.7)27(39.1)
HIV pre-exposure awareness 0.006
        No66 (25.3)57(29.7)9(13.0)
        Yes195 (74.7)135(70.3)60(87.0)
Lifetime number of HIV testing, median (IQR)4 (2–8)3(1–6)10(5–17)<0.001
Condom use self-efficacy (5–35), median (IQR)30 (26–34)29(25–34)33(28–35)0.013
Note: AUDIT-C, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption (score range: 0–12); bold indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). ‡ Including intake or smoking (even a puff) of the following products: Regular cigarette, E-cigarette, Bidi, Cigar, Hookah, Pipe, Dip, Chewing tobacco, Dissolvable, Snuff, or Snus. † Recreational drug use: self-report intake of rush poppers (alkyl nitrites), crystal meth (methamphetamine), marihuana, hallucinogens (ketamine, LSD, PCP, etc.), cocaine, heroin or other opioids, Magu (a mixture of methamphetamine and caffeine), opium, triazolam tablets (benzodiazepines) or ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA). ※ Binge drinking is defined as having six or more standard drinks (i.e., 12 ounces (one can) of beer (5% alcohol), 6 ounces (one glass) of wine (12% alcohol), 1.5 ounces (one shot) of liquor (40% alcohol)) during a drinking occasion. § Including previous diagnosis of one or more of the following sexually transmitted infections: hepatitis B/C, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV), and/or trichomoniasis. a Self-initiated HIV testing after engagement in one or more episodes of the following risk behaviors: condomless anal sex (CAS) with a casual sex partner, anal sex with a known HIV-positive partner, condomless oral sex with a causal and/or known HIV-positive partner, group sex, and/or alcohol/drug intoxication before sex.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Y.; Hawkins, M.; Osman, A.; Zhang, C. Assessing the Prevalence and Determinants of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing among a Sample of Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-Naïve Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7, 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080146

AMA Style

Liu Y, Hawkins M, Osman A, Zhang C. Assessing the Prevalence and Determinants of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing among a Sample of Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-Naïve Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022; 7(8):146. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080146

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Yu, Mary Hawkins, Amna Osman, and Chen Zhang. 2022. "Assessing the Prevalence and Determinants of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing among a Sample of Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-Naïve Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States" Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease 7, no. 8: 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080146

APA Style

Liu, Y., Hawkins, M., Osman, A., & Zhang, C. (2022). Assessing the Prevalence and Determinants of Exposure-Influenced HIV Testing among a Sample of Pre- and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis-Naïve Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 7(8), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080146

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop