Search

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

HIV self-testing allows people to collect samples and test themselves at home, addressing known barriers to facility-based testing. We aimed to measure the uptake of home HIV testing among Australian gay and bisexual men (GBM). Using national cross-sectional data from the Australian Gay Community Periodic Surveys, we assessed trends in home HIV testing among non-HIV positive GBM between 2018 and 2020. Overall, the use of home HIV testing was low, but slightly increased during 2018–2020 (from 0.3 to 0.8%, RR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.23–1.92, p-trend < 0.001). Testing at home was more likely among non-HIV-positive GBM who were born overseas and recently arrived in Australia, at higher risk of HIV, and infrequent HIV testers. Given the greater use of home testing by men at higher risk of HIV, recent migrants and infrequent testers, all priority groups in Australia's HIV epidemic, we recommend increasing access to HIV self-testing to enhance uptake in these and other groups of GBM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Recent increases in the availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) internationally have widened the range of HIV prevention strategies available to gay and bisexual men. This paper aimed to quantify the use of different risk reduction strategies and compare characteristics of men who rarely use any strategies with those who regularly use condoms or PrEP. Using national cross-sectional data from the Gay Community Periodic Surveys in Australia, comparisons were made between regular condom users (37.1% of participants), PrEP users (50.1%), and men who infrequently used any risk reduction strategies (12.8%). The proportion of gay and bisexual men reporting infrequent use of HIV risk reduction strategies has decreased in recent years. These men reported less frequent high-risk sexual practices than PrEP users and also reported less recent HIV testing than either PrEP or condom users. Men who infrequently use HIV risk reduction strategies should be encouraged to test for HIV more regularly and to utilise prevention strategies that align with their infrequent high-risk behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing HIV testing frequency in gay and bisexual men (GBM) is critical to reducing the time between HIV infection and diagnosis. Using anonymous national behavioural surveillance data (2013–2018) from 43,753 surveys of Australian GBM, we examined HIV testing frequency trends and factors differentiating PrEP-users, non-PrEP-users reporting two or more tests in the previous year, and non-PrEP-users reporting less frequent testing. The proportion tested at least annually increased from 64.4% in 2013 to 70.8% in 2018 (p-trend < 0.001), and from 73.9% to 84.6% among the 51.6% of men classified as higher-risk. Among higher-risk men, having two or more tests in the previous year increased from 48.0% to 69.3% (p-trend < 0.001). Among higher-risk non-PrEP-users, it increased from 47.2% to 54.8% (p-trend < 0.001), however, there was a decrease since 2016 (p-trend < 0.001). Among PrEP-users, it increased from 82.1% in 2013 to 97.3% in 2018 (p-trend < 0.001). Non-PrEP-using higher-risk men having less frequent tests reported lower risk than PrEP-users and non-PrEP-using men reporting two or more tests in the previous year. However, recent risk behaviour was not uncommon: nearly half reported condomless sex; one-fifth reported receptive condomless sex with ejaculation; over half reported group sex; one-quarter used drugs for the purposes of sex; and one-fifth had more than ten sex partners. Efforts are needed to encourage frequent testing and PrEP use among non-PrEP-users who are at higher-risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from repeated, national behavioural HIV surveillance was used to identify similarities and differences between young gay and bisexual men (YGBM) aged 16–24 (n = 1608) and older GBM aged 25–49 (n = 6266), in order to quantify risks and identify gaps in HIV prevention. Trend analyses from 2014 to 2018 are also reported. While there were similar rates of condomless anal intercourse with casual partners in both age groups, YGBM had lower rates of HIV testing and PrEP use but also fewer male partners. Our results suggest most YGBM have lower HIV risk than older GBM but a minority merit enhanced testing and prevention efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)