Objectives There has been a large influx of central and east European (CEE) migrants to the UK following the expansion of the European Union. This paper examines factors associated with genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic attendance and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnosis among CEE migrants in London.
Methods A survey of sexual behaviour was conducted among CEE migrants attending two central London GUM clinics (n=299) and community venues in London (n=2276). Routinely collected clinic data were also analysed.
Results CEE migrants made up 2.9% of male and 7.0% of female attendees at the clinics. Half the women attending sessions for female sex workers were from CEE countries, and paying for sex was widely reported by men. Women were more likely than men to have attended a GUM clinic in the UK (7.6% vs 4.5%, p=0.002). GUM survey respondents were more likely than community survey respondents to report one or more new sexual partners in the past year (women 67.9% vs 28.3%, p<0.001; men 75.6% vs 45.1%, p<0.001) and homosexual partnership(s) in the past 5 years (men 54.3% vs 1.8%, p<0.001), but were less likely to report assortative heterosexual mixing (women 25.9% vs 74.2%, p<0.001; men 56.5% vs 76.3%, p<0.001).
Conclusions CEE patients make up a notable minority of patients attending two central London GUM clinics. Higher numbers of sexual partners, homosexual partnerships and sexual mixing with people from outside the country of origin are associated with GUM clinic attendance. Heterosexual CEE men report behaviours associated with HIV/STI acquisition but appear to be underutilising GUM services.
- European migration
- GUM services
- health service research
- sexual behaviour
- sexual health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This study was supported by the MRC Sexual Health and HIV Research Strategy Committee and the North Central London Research Consortium (NoCLoR) Grant Enhancement Fund. The sponsor of the study played no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, the writing of the report or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the MRC, NoCLoR or the health departments.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Camden and Islington Community Research Ethics Committee (07/H0722/110).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.