Search

Exchange sex is associated with sexual risk behaviors and poor outcomes and different types may incur different levels of risk. We assessed risk profiles of different types of exchange sex among non-injecting cisgender men and women who participated in the 2019 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance project at six sites. Six percent of men and 19% of women reported exchange sex in the past year; most engaged in non-commercial exchange sex for drugs/money with smaller percentages reporting formal sex work or non-commercial exchange sex for goods or services other than drugs/money. Exchange sex was associated with sexual risk and prevention behaviors and psychosocial and sexual health outcomes and associations varied by type of exchange sex. Efforts to improve access to STI/HIV testing and PrEP may benefit from tailoring based on type of exchange sex. Findings indicate value in a broader definition of exchange sex with follow-up assessment of exchange sex typology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research suggests sexual minority female sex workers (SM-FSW) face elevated structural vulnerability and HIV risk compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Structural vulnerabilities reflect societal level factors (e.g., sexism, homophobia, racism) that constrain an individual's agency, particularly related to health outcomes. This study examines the association between SM status by identity and behavior, structural vulnerability, and HIV risk among a sample of street-based FSW. Methods: The current study utilizes baseline data from the SAPPHIRE study, a prospective cohort of cis gender and transgender FSW in Baltimore, MD, recruited through targeted time-location sampling from April 2016 to January 2017. The current analysis focuses on cisgender women. The baseline survey ascertained demographics, substance use, intimate partner violence (IPV), and sex work characteristics. Multivariable models were constructed using self-identity and behaviorally defined SM status as independent variables with vulnerability outcomes (e.g., injection drug use, injection speedball, binge drinking, homelessness, physical IPV, ever had a pimp, and being a minor at sex work entry (age < 18)) as dependent variables. Results: Of the participants (n = 247), 25.5% (n = 63) self-identified as a SM by identity (e.g., gay or bisexual), and 8.5% (n = 21) reported SM behavior (e.g., same-gender sexual behavior) in the past 3 months. In multivariable logistic regression models, SM status by identity was associated with increased odds of injection drug use, binge drinking, homelessness, physical IPV, and being a minor at sex work entry. SM status by behavior was associated with increased odds of binge drinking, homelessness, ever having a pimp, and being a minor at sex work entry. Conclusion: The study indicates disproportionate structural vulnerability and heightened HIV risk among SM-FSW, as compared to their heterosexual counterparts, with differences in their profile by sexual identity and behavior. Findings suggest a need for nuanced interventions tailored to these populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender-minority health disparity research is limited by binary gender measurement practices. This study seeks to broaden current discourse on gender identity measurement in the USA, including measurement adoption challenges and mitigation strategies, thereby allowing for better data collection to understand and address health disparities for people of all genders. Three data sources were used to triangulate findings: expert interviews with gender and sexuality research leaders; key-informant interviews with gender minorities in New Orleans, LA; and document analysis of relevant surveys, guides and commentaries. Ten key dilemmas were identified: 1) moving beyond binary gender construction; 2) conflation of gender, sex and sexual orientation; 3) emerging nature of gender-related language; 4) concerns about item sensitivity; 5) research fatigue among gender minorities; 6) design and analytical limitations; 7) categorical and procedural consistency; 8) pre-populated vs. open-field survey items; 9) potential misclassification; and 10) competing data collection needs. Researchers must continue working toward consensus concerning better practices is gender measurement and be explicit about their methodological choices. The existence of these dilemmas must not impede research on important health issues affecting gender minorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic continues driving unprecedented disruptions to health care provision, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services. We explored service provider experiences promoting and prescribing PrEP to marginalized populations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Baltimore, Maryland. In February to April 2021, we facilitated four virtual focus group discussions with 20 PrEP providers, representing various professional cadres and practice settings. Employing an iterative, team-based thematic analysis, we identified salient enablers and constraints to PrEP promotion, initiation, and maintenance in the COVID-19 era, along with innovative adaptations to PrEP service delivery. Discussants described attenuated demands for PrEP early in the pandemic, exemplified by high PrEP discontinuation rates. This was attributed to changes in clients' sexual behaviors and shifting priorities, including caregiving responsibilities, during the pandemic. Substantial systems-level disruptions impacting PrEP provision were identified, including outreach service suspension, personnel shortages, and facility restrictions on face-to-face visits. Providers emphasized that these disruptions, though occurring early in the pandemic, had protracted impacts on PrEP accessibility. The transition to telemedicine rendered health care services, including PrEP, more accessible/convenient to some clients and expeditious to providers. However, structural barriers to telehealth engagement (telephone/internet access), coupled with limitations of the virtual care environment (difficulty establishing rapport), impeded efforts to equitably promote and prescribe PrEP. Expanding the PrEP outreach workforce and availing alternatives to telemedicine (e.g., community-based PrEP provision, specimen self-collection) could facilitate PrEP care continuity, especially as COVID-19 transitions from an acute to a protracted health crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]