MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415291403 · doi:10.2196/71690

Associations Between Online Casual Sexual Behavior and HIV-Related Risk Behaviors Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Southeast China: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4415291403 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lin Chen, Zhongrong Yang, Wanjun Chen, Tingting Jiang, Xiaohong Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualSexual behaviorMen who have sex with menPsychological interventionSex partnersRisky sexual behaviorHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Online and offlineHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the growing popularity and convenience of the internet, an increasing number of men who have sex with men (MSM) are seeking casual sexual partners online. However, the effect of online casual sexual behavior on other HIV-related risk behaviors remains unclear. Objective: This study aims to explore the characteristics of internet-based casual sexual behavior and its relationship with HIV-related risk behaviors among MSM. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and December 2018 in 4 cities in Zhejiang Province, China. Peer-driven sampling was used for recruitment. Announcements were disseminated by 4 community-based organizations and 10 voluntary counseling and testing clinics online and offline. After informed consent, participants completed an electronic questionnaire covering demographic characteristics, casual sexual behaviors, HIV-related risk behaviors, and HIV prevention. SPSS (version 19.0; IBM Corp) was used to conduct chi-square tests, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses using a backward stepwise method based on the likelihood ratio test, and Poisson regression with robust variance to identify associations between finding casual sexual partners online and other risk behaviors. P values of <.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: In the past 6 months, 40.2% (302/751) of participants reported finding casual sexual partners online; 18.9% (142/751) reported finding casual sexual partners offline; 7.6% (57/751) reported having sexual intercourse with MSM without condoms after drinking alcohol; and 6.9% (52/751) reported condomless sex after using stimulants. Among those who found partners online, 62.5% (188/301) did so more than once per month and 39.5% (113/286) had more than one online sexual partner. In total, 39.3% (114/290) had sex with online partners at home and 10.1% (30/297) sought partners in other cities. Compared with participants who engaged in receptive anal intercourse (or both roles), those who engaged only in insertive intercourse reported a higher proportion of finding partners online more than once per month (72.7% vs 57.4%, P=.01), having more than 2 online sexual partners (52.1% vs 33.3%, P=.002), and conducting inconsistent condom use with online sexual partners (40.0% vs 25.8%, P=.01). Regression analysis showed that, compared with MSM who did not find partners online, those who did were more likely to report finding casual sexual partners offline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 9.398; 95% CI 5.956-14.829), having sex without condoms after drinking alcohol (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.788; 95% CI 1.062-3.011), and having sexual intercourse without condoms after using stimulants (aPR 2.064; 95% CI 1.178-3.617). Conclusions: Internet-based casual sexual behavior is increasingly common among MSM. Finding partners online was associated with offline partner-seeking and condomless use after alcohol or stimulant use. Future HIV prevention efforts should emphasize behavioral interventions tailored to MSM who use dating apps.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→