MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2978546601 · doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000002333

HIV-related risk behaviors and testing among adolescent gay and bisexual boys in the United States

2019· letter· en· W2978546601 sur OpenAlexaff
Babayemi O. Olakunde, Jennifer R. Pharr, Daniel A Adeyinka, Philip Danquah

Notice bibliographique

RevueAIDS · 2019
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHomosexualityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologySexual behaviorMedicineDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyVirology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

MSM are at increased risk of HIV, and they account for the majority of the HIV infections among adolescents in the United States [1]. Although there is a body of evidence on HIV-related risk behaviors and testing among adolescent MSM, most of the studies have included those aged 18 years and older [2,3]. In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved preexposure prophylaxis for HIV for adolescents who weigh at least 35 kg [4], based on a trial that demonstrated its safety and tolerance among adolescent MSM aged 15–17 years [5]. Given the recent approval, a critical look at this specific age group and their vulnerability to HIV has become important. In this study, we assessed HIV-related risk behaviors and HIV testing among adolescent gay and bisexual younger than 18 years in the United States. This study was a secondary data analysis of the 2015 and 2017 cycles of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). The YRBS is a nationally representative survey conducted to track health behaviors among high school students in the United States. More detailed information on the sampling design can be found at (https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm). In 2015, for the first time, the national survey included a question about sexual identity of the respondents. Our study population was adolescent boys (younger than 18 years) who self-identified as sexually active gay or bisexual. In this study, HIV testing referred to any previous test for HIV (excluding tests done during blood donation). We assessed the following HIV-related risk behaviors: Condom use: use of condom by the respondent or their partner at last sexual intercourse. Sexual partner: number of sexual partners in the last 3 months prior to the survey. Inject drug use: number of times respondents had used a needle to inject any illegal drug into their bodies in their lifetime. Substance abuse before sex: drinking of alcohol or use of drugs before last sexual intercourse. We classified respondents as having high-risk behaviors if they had any of the following: no condom use, more than one sexual partner, injection drug use at least once, or used substance before sex. We conducted weighted descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis to determine factors associated with HIV testing. We considered P value less than 0.05 as statistically significant. All data analyses were performed with SAS software Version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA, using the procedures for complex survey. The study was deemed exempt by the institutional review board of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA. Out of the 12 840 adolescent boys younger than 18 years, 189 (1.5%) self-identified as sexually active gay or bisexual. The majority of the sexually active gay and bisexual boys (81%) were between 15 and 17 years of age. Approximately 43% of them were in the 10th grade, and 55% were of the white race/ethnicity. Forty-nine percent [95% confidence interval (CI) = 39.3–58.7] of them reported not using condom in their last anal sexual intercourse. About 65% (95% CI = 54.5–74.5) of them engaged in high-risk behaviors, and only 22% (95% CI = 13.8–29.3) had tested for HIV. In the logistic regression analyses, Hispanic/Latino adolescent gay and bisexual boys had nearly four times the odds for testing for HIV as white adolescent gay and bisexual boys (odds ratio = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.1–11.1) (Table 1).Table 1: Binary logistic regression results with HIV testing as the dependent variable.Our results show that nearly seven in 10 sexually active adolescent MSM younger than 18 years in high school engage in high-risk behaviors. Low condom use in the study population maybe as a result of perceived lower sexual pleasure with condom and partner disapproval [6]. Our findings also show poor uptake of HIV testing. But, there was no enough evidence to suggest an association between HIV-related risk behaviors and HIV testing in our analysis. The variation in race/ethnicity in HIV testing was contrary to our expectations of higher HIV testing among black adolescent MSM given the disproportionate burden of HIV among them [7]. Low-risk perception, not knowing where to receive HIV tests, and concerns about confidentiality are some of the barriers that may be limiting HIV testing among adolescent gay and bisexual boys [8]. Laws preventing minors to consenting to HIV services may also be a structural barrier in some states. However, Nelson et al.[9] did not find legal capacity to consent for HIV testing to be significantly associated with HIV testing among adolescent sexual minority males. In conclusion, as the United States has renewed its goal of ending the HIV epidemic [10], our findings indicate that there is a need to intensify HIV prevention interventions targeting adolescent gay and bisexual boys younger than 18 years. Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,303
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,327
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · 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.

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

Citations4
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAIDSMême sujetHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsTravaux en français237 207