Search

Objective: Epidemics impact individuals unevenly across race, gender, and sexuality. In addition to being more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, evidence suggests racialized gender and sexual minorities experienced disproportionate levels of discrimination and stigma during the COVID-19 epidemic. Drawing on Critical Race Theory (CRT), we examined the experiences of gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men (GBQM) of colour facing discrimination during COVID-19. Design: Engage-COVID-19 is a mixed methods study examining the impact of COVID-19 on GBQM living in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montréal, Canada. We conducted two rounds of qualitative interviews (November 2020 to February 2021, and June to October 2021) with 93 GBQM to explore the evolving impact of COVID-19 on their lives. Transcripts were coded using inductive thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted using Nvivo software. Results: Fifty-nine participants identified as Black, Indigenous, and/or a Person of Colour (BIPOC). These GBQM of colour described multiple experiences of discrimination during COVID-19. Although participants did not report experiences of discrimination based on their sexual identity during COVID-19, we found that experiences of racism affected how they were treated within their sexual networks. Experiences of racism were most often reported by East Asian and Black GBQM. These participants faced racism in public and online spaces, primarily in the form of verbal harassment. Several participants were also harassed because they wore face masks. Verbal abuse against GBQM of colour was largely prompted by racist discourses related to COVID-19. Conclusion: Racism remains a pernicious threat to the well-being of GBQM of colour. CRT highlights the importance of assessing how sexualized and gendered discourses about race shape the experiences of GBQM of colour navigating multiple epidemics like COVID-19 and HIV. These pervasive discourses unevenly affect racial and sexual minorities across multiple epidemics, and negatively impact health outcomes for these populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on 24 interviews conducted with gay, bisexual, queer and other men who have sex with men (GBM) living in Toronto, Canada, we examined how they are making sense of the relationship between their mental health and substance use. We draw from the literature on the biopolitics of substance use to document how GBM self-regulate and use alcohol and other drugs (AODC) as technologies of the self. Despite cultural understandings of substance use as integral to GBM communities and subjectivity, GBM can be ambivalent about their AODC. Participants discussed taking substances positively as a therapeutic mental health aid and negatively as being corrosive to their mental wellbeing. A fine line was communicated between substance use being selfproductive or self-destructive. Some discussed having made 'problematic' or 'unhealthy' drug-taking decisions, while others presented themselves as self-controlled, responsible neoliberal actors doing 'what a normal gay man would do'. This ambivalence is related to the polarizing binary community and scientific discourses on substances (i.e. addiction/healthy use, irrational/rational, uncontrolled/controlled). Our findings add to the critical drug literature by demonstrating how reifying and/or dismantling the coherency of such substance use binaries can serve as a biopolitical site for some GBM to construct their identities and demonstrate healthy, 'responsible' subjectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ambivalence, the vacillation between conflicting feelings and thoughts, is a key characteristic of scientific knowledge production and emergent biomedical technology. Drawing from sociological theory on ambivalence, we have examined three areas of debate surrounding the early implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, for gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men in Canada, including epistemology and praxis, clinical and epidemiological implications, and sexual politics. These debates are not focused on the science or efficacy of PrEP to prevent HIV, but rather represent contradictory feelings and opinions about the biopolitics of PrEP and health inequities. Emphasizing how scientists and health practitioners may feel conflicted about the biopolitics of novel biomedical technologies opens up opportunities to consider how a scientific field is or is not adequately advancing issues of equity. Scientists ignoring their ambivalence over the state of their research field may be deemed necessary to achieve a specific implementation goal, but this emotion management work can lead to alienation. We argue that recognizing the emotional dimensions of doing HIV research is not a distraction from "real" science, but can instead be a reflexive site to develop pertinent lines of inquiry better suited at addressing health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are not eligible to donate blood or plasma in Canada if they have had sex with another man in the last 3 months. This time-based deferment has reduced since 2013; from an initial lifetime ban, to five-years, one-year, and now three-months. Our previous research revealed that gay, bisexual, queer, and other MSM (GBM) supported making blood donation policies gender-neutral and behaviour-based. In this analysis, we explored the willingness of Canadian GBM to donate plasma, even if they were not eligible to donate blood.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 39 HIV-negative GBM in Vancouver (n = 15), Toronto (n = 13), and Montreal (n = 11), recruited from a large respondent-driven sampling study called Engage. Men received some basic information on plasma donation prior to answering questions. Transcripts were coded in NVivo following inductive thematic analysis.Results: Many GBM expressed a general willingness to donate plasma if they became eligible; like with whole blood donation, GBM conveyed a strong desire to help others in need. However, this willingness was complicated by the fact that most participants had limited knowledge of plasma donation and were unsure of its medical importance. Participants' perspectives on a policy that enabled MSM to donate plasma varied, with some viewing this change as a "stepping stone" to a reformed blood donation policy and others regarding it as insufficient and constructing GBM as "second-class" donors. When discussing plasma, many men reflected on the legacy of blood donor policy-related discrimination. Our data reveal a significant plasma policy disjuncture-a gulf between the critical importance of plasma donation from the perspective of Canada's blood operators and patients and the feelings of many GBM who understood this form of donation as less important.Conclusions: Plasma donor policies must be considered in relation to MSM blood donation policies to understand how donor eligibility practices are made meaningful by GBM in the context of historical disenfranchisement. Successful establishment of a MSM plasma donor policy will require extensive education, explicit communication of how this new policy contributes to continued/stepwise reform of blood donor policies, and considerable reconciliation with diverse GBM communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood donation policies governing men who have sex with men have shifted significantly over time in Canada—from an initial lifetime ban in the wake of the AIDS crisis to successive phases of time-based deferment requiring periods of sexual abstinence (5 years to 1 year to 3 months). We interviewed 39 HIV-negative gay, bisexual, queer, and other sexual minority men (GBM) in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal to understand their willingness to donate blood if eligible. Transcripts were coded following inductive thematic analysis. We found interrelated and competing expressions of biological and sexual citizenship. Most participants said they were "safe"/"low risk" and "willing" donors and would gain satisfaction and civic pride from donation. Conversely, a smaller group neither prioritized the collectivizing biological citizenship goals associated with expanding blood donation access nor saw this as part of sexual citizenship priorities. Considerable repair work is required by Canada's blood operators to build trust with diverse GBM communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is mounting urgency regarding the mental health of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM). We examined how GBM are understanding the relationship between HIV and their mental health given the increasing biomedicalisation of HIV prevention and care. Our Grounded Theory analysis derived from qualitative interviews with 24 GBM living in Toronto, Canada, including both HIV‐negative and HIV‐positive men. Participants understood biomedical advances, such as undetectable viral load and pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as providing some relief from HIV‐related distress. However, they offered ambivalent perspectives on the biomedicalisation of HIV. Some considered non‐HIV‐specific stressors (e.g. unemployment, racial discrimination) more significant than HIV‐related concerns. These men expressed HIV‐related distress as being under control due to biomedical advances or as always negligible when compared to non‐HIV‐specific stressors. Others emphasised the ongoing mental health implications of HIV (e.g. enduring risk and stigma). We describe a tension between optimistic responses to biomedicine's ability to ease the psychosocial burdens associated with HIV and the inability for biomedicine to address the social and economic determinants driving the dual epidemics of HIV and mental distress amongst GBM. We argue for more socio‐material analysis over further sexual behavioural analysis of GBM mental health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social science literature on medical screening has documented a notable disjuncture between the promises of population-based screening programs and the complex realities of their rollout in everyday practice. We contribute to this scholarship by examining how healthcare providers confront numerous uncertainties associated with the implementation of anal cancer screening programs in Canada given the absence of standardized national evidence-based guidelines. The data was derived from in-depth interviews conducted with 13 physicians and 2 clinical researchers about anal cancer screening for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men living with HIV, the minority sub-population at the highest risk for HPV-associated anal cancer. Despite having unknown utility and low specificity, an initial anal Pap test was used to triage patients into anal dysplasia clinics for high-resolution anoscopy. This process led to technological scepticism toward the Pap's accuracy, diagnostic ambiguity related to the interpretation of the cytology results and increased patient anxiety regarding abnormal results. Physicians navigated a tension between wanting to avoid exposing their patients to additional uncertainties caused by screening and pre-cancer treatment and wanting to ensure that their patients did not develop anal cancer under their care. A high number of abnormal anal Pap results paradoxically reintroduced some of the capacity issues that the Pap was meant to resolve, as the existing dysplasia clinics were incapable of seeing all patients with abnormal results. We define this sequence as the epistemic-capacity paradox , a dynamic whereby seeking evidence to improve healthcare capacity simultaneously produces evidence that introduces capacity challenges and generates additional uncertainty. The epistemic-capacity paradox demonstrates the limitations of evidence-based medicine frameworks at determining best practices in the context of rarer health conditions affecting minority sub-populations, where smaller population numbers and limited institutional support pose systemic challenges to the acquisition of sufficient evidence. • Anal cancer rates are highest among men who have sex with men living with HIV. • Anal Pap tests are used to screen despite contested utility and uncertain results. • Limited evidence and resource constraints can create feedback loops of uncertainty. • Evidence-based medicine has critical limitations when addressing rarer conditions. • Implementing screening programs may be more difficult for minority sub-populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM), and GBM living with HIV in particular, are disproportionately impacted by HPV-associated cancers. The HPV vaccine, given early enough in life, may markedly reduce the likelihood of such cancers. In Canada, most provincial insurance programs only cover HPV vaccination for GBM up to the age of 26. Our objective was to understand physicians' everyday experiences and challenges in recommending HPV vaccination to older GBM patients. Methods: As part of the HPV Screening and Vaccine Evaluation (HPV-SAVE) Study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 HIV-positive GBM patients who had received anal cancer screening and 15 service providers, including 13 physicians, who had arranged for anal cancer screening in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. In this analysis, we draw upon the 13 physician interviews, which were coded following Grounded Theory. Results: Physicians strongly supported the HPV vaccine for all GBM and considered it to be important for the management of HIV-related care. However, the overall support for HPV vaccination among physicians did not translate into consistent recommendation practices. There were two overarching factors that limited the strength/frequency of physicians' vaccine recommendation practices. First, cost/insurance coverage for some older patients impacted if and how the HPV vaccine was discussed. Second, physicians had diverse perspectives on both the prevention and therapeutic benefits of vaccinating older GBM and the reality that national guidelines are incongruent with publicly funded vaccine programs for vaccinating patients over 26 years old. These two interrelated factors have co-produced an apparent economic-evidentiary conundrum for many physicians regarding how and for whom to offer HPV vaccination. Conclusion: Economic barriers coupled with evidentiary and guideline gaps have created clinical practice challenges for physicians and has resulted in different messages being communicated to some older GBM patients about how important HPV vaccination is for their health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]