MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1989287247 · doi:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050108.117

P1-S2.60 Prevalence and correlates of giving or receiving sex for money, drugs or goods among men who have sex with men in Vancouver, British Columbia

2011· article· en· W1989287247 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Warren Michelow, Robert S. Hogg, David Moore, Réka Gustafson, Terry Trussler, M McGuire, Mark Gilbert

Notice bibliographique

RevueSexually Transmitted Infections · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSex work and related issues
Établissements canadiensBC Centre for Disease ControlPublic Health Agency of CanadaVancouver Coastal HealthCommunity Based Research CentreAIDS Vancouver
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMen who have sex with menDemographyMale HomosexualitySex workersFamily medicineEnvironmental healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Research methodologySyphilisPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The exchange of sex for money, drugs, goods/services (transactional sex) is a recognised risk factor for HIV infection, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM). We investigated the prevalence and correlates of transactional sex among MSM recruited into the Vancouver component of the Public Health Agency of Canada's M-Track second generation national surveillance system of MSM (ManCount). Methods In 2008−2009, ManCount recruited MSM aged ≥19 years through community venues and events catering to MSM to complete a self-administered questionnaire and provide a blood sample for testing for HIV. We examined responses to questions on having given or received money, drugs or goods/services in exchange for sex in the past 6 months (P6M) and used multivariate logistic regression to explore association of seeking and providing transactional sex with a number of recognised HIV risk factors. The complete dataset included MSM recruited from a drop-in centre for male sex workers (MSW)—we first compared these men to the rest of the sample and then, to reduce confounding, these data were excluded from our detailed analysis of correlates. Results Of the 1169 participants, 1130 answered the transactional sex questions and 38 were MSW. Of the MSW, 81% reported transactional sex P6M. The MSW differed significantly from the other MSM and were predominantly not gay-identified; reported lower income and education; higher injection drug use, drug use with sex and public sex (all p<0.0001). Of the 1131 participants included in the remaining analysis, 1093 answered the transactional sex questions, with 188 (17.2%) reporting exchanging some consideration for sex P6M—12.0% having received consideration, 10.9% having given, and 5.2% both. 8.7% received money, 7.0% drugs and 4.8% goods; 6.8% gave money, 4.3% gave drugs and 4.6% gave goods. Abstract P1-S2.60 table 1 shows correlates of receiving and giving transactional sex. Abstract P1-S2.60 Table 1 Correlates of transactional sex Variable Level Received for Sex Gave for sex Crude OR Adjusted OR Crude OR Adjusted OR Age category 30–44 0.60 (0.39 to 0.91) – 1.3 (0.8 to 2.1) 1.2 (0.7 to 2.2) (vs <30) 45+ 0.65 (0.40 to 1.05) – 3.0 (1.8 to 4.9) 2.7 (1.5 to 4.9) Sexual orientation Not “gay” 3.1 (2.1 to 4.6) 2.7 (1.6 to 4.2) 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) – Income <$10K 3.9 (2.2 to 6.9) 3.5 (1.8 to 6.8) – – (vs ≥$40K) $10K–$39K 1.9 (1.2 to 2.9) 1.6 (1.0 to 2.7) – – Education High school or less 1.8 (1.2 to 2.8) – 1.6 (1.0 to 2.4) – STI P6M Yes 2.6 (1.4 to 4.9) – 1.3 (0.6 to 2.9) – HIV status Positive 2.3 (1.5 to 3.5) – 2.1 (1.3 to 3.3) – (vs neg) Don't know 1.3 (0.7 to 2.6) – 1.1 (0.5 to 2.3) – IDU P6M Yes 4.0 (2.0 to 7.7) – 5.2 (2.7 to 10.1) 3.3 (1.5 to 7.6) Public sex* 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) – 3.7 (2.4 to 5.6) 2.5 (1.5 to 4.0) Drugs with sex 1–49% of the time 3.6 (2.3 to 5.5) 3.6 (2.2 to 5.7) 1.8 (1.1 to 2.9) 1.7 (1.0 to 2.9) (vs none) 50–100% 8.9 (4.7 to 16.8) 6.1 (2.9 to 12.8) 7.9 (4.2 to 14.8) 6.0 (2.8 to 13.1) # Sex partners P6M 1.04 (1.03 to 1.06) 1.03 (1.02 to 1.05) 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) – Risky sex† Yes 2.2 (1.5 to 3.3) – 2.1 (1.4 to 3.3) 1.7 (1.0 to 2.8) * Seeking sex in parks, public washrooms, bike paths. † Unprotected anal sex with a sero-discordant or unknown HIV status partner. STI, sexually transmitted infection; P6M, past 6 months; IDU, injection drug use (excl. steroids). Conclusion The exchange of money, drugs or goods/services for sex is common among MSM in ManCount and may be more prevalent in MSM culture than previously thought. Lower income, non-gay identity and more sex partners were associated with receiving consideration for sex, whereas older age, IDU P6M, seeking sex in public places and risky sex were associated with giving consideration. Transactional sex was strongly associated with use of recreational drugs along with sex and emphasises an intimate connection between drug use and sex in the production of HIV risk.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,441
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,869

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSexually Transmitted InfectionsMême sujetSex work and related issuesTravaux en français237 207